PRIVATE BUSINESS

National Trust (Northern Ireland) Bill

Lords amendments considered and accordingly agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals Trust

Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement on the future of services at Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals Trust.

Ben Bradshaw: Proposals for on how to change services to improve care for patients are for the NHS to decide locally. On 28 June, Barnet, Enfield and Haringey primary care trust launched a full public consultation on proposals to improve health care in the area.

Andrew Dismore: While there are concerns about the nature of the consultation, it could provide a real opportunity to improve services in our area. There are fears that if there were movement of patients from Chase Farm to Barnet, the new improved services at Barnet would not be in place before any changes were implemented at Chase Farm. Can my hon. Friend assure me that new services will be provided before any changes are made?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, I can. I am pleased by the welcome that my hon. Friend gives the proposals. I know that he has been closely engaged, meeting both local health service managers and his constituents. I assure him that it is very important that changes that result from the local discussions are made only once the services to which he refers are in place.

Anne Milton: I understand that the Healthcare Commission report states that the trust does not have an identified budget for infection control training and that attendance at infection control training is being monitored. The Government said in 2004 that 1 million staff would get training in infection control. Why is that not happening, and is the Government's decision to cut 10 per cent. from the education and training budget part of the reason for that failure?

Ben Bradshaw: As the hon. Lady knows, there has been a 9.4 per cent. increase in funds available to PCTs in the last financial year. I take it that she was referring to the Healthcare Commission's report on hygiene standards at Barnet and Chase Farm—

Anne Milton: indicated assent.

Ben Bradshaw: The hon. Lady did not specify that, but I am glad that that is the case. We are concerned about that, and the commission also expressed its concern. As a result of its report, the trust is investing an extra £500,000 in cleaning wards, screening patients before admission and a prudent antibiotic prescribing policy.

Andrew Love: Changes at Chase Farm hospital will have implications for other local hospitals, especially North Middlesex hospital in my constituency, which is just about to start a new PFI. Will my hon. Friend give me some reassurance that any changes that will have an impact on the North Middlesex hospital will be taken into account when that PFI gets under way?

Ben Bradshaw: It is important that all elements of proposed changes, including the potential impact on PFI schemes, are taken into account when such service changes are proposed. I expect that my hon. Friend is already intensely engaged in the consultation process to ensure that his concerns about the impact on his constituency are made clear.

Patient Choice

David Tredinnick: What progress the Government has made in increasing patient choice within the NHS.

Alan Johnson: Patients have a choice of four or more local hospitals for elective care and 114 other hospitals through extended choice. From April 2008, patients can choose any hospital that meets NHS standards and cost, beginning with orthopaedics this month. In June we launched the groundbreaking NHS choices information service.

David Tredinnick: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply and for writing to me about the regulation of Chinese medicine, which was helpful in setting a timetable. Does he accept that real problems are caused by the fact that demand from patients is out of sync with the supply of services, especially in complementary and alternative medicine? Primary care trusts are not listening to patient demand. The situation is well illustrated in London, where the Royal London homeopathic hospital, which provides a range of services that go way beyond homeopathy, is being cut. If the Secretary of State really believes in patient choice, which is to be his flagship with his new broom Front Benchers— [ Interruption. ] Well, there are some new brooms, because all the old Ministers were sacked— [ Interruption. ] Well, most of them—a large proportion—were fired. Will the Secretary of State please consider issuing guidelines to primary care trusts to take patient choice into consideration?

Alan Johnson: In preparing to reply to this Adjournment debate, I looked carefully at the points the hon. Gentleman made in his letter to me but I am not persuaded of the need to issue guidelines at this time. It is clear to me that many more patients want the benefit of complementary and alternative medicine and therapies; indeed, the most recent survey showed a high percentage of patients looking for that. What general practitioners do is very much a matter for them; for instance, I understand that in the Newcastle primary care trust area 69 per cent. of GPs deal with complementary and alternative medicines, so I see no need to issue guidelines at this stage, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that such medicines are becoming an increasingly important part of GP prescriptions.

Andrew Miller: The technology driving some of the new health service systems has started to bite and is having a huge impact on our ability to improve patient choice, as well as delivering many other health benefit outcomes. With the departure, shortly, of Richard Granger, who has done such a splendid job on behalf of the NHS, will my right hon. Friend ensure that his replacement is of that calibre and that there is no shift in the Government's drive to improve health IT systems?

Alan Johnson: I shall meet Richard Granger just before his departure. My hon. Friend refers to an important area, where, as he says, we can extend patient choice and use new technology for the greater convenience of patients, citizens and clinicians, which is why it is important that we get the right person to replace Richard Granger.

Sandra Gidley: How does the Secretary of State square his Government's supposed notion of choice with the large-scale closure of maternity units, especially midwife-led units, thereby depriving many women of choice, particularly in Romsey and the New Forest?

Alan Johnson: There are two issues, the first of which is choice, which we want to extend. An important GP survey was published today and I made a written statement about it this morning. The second issue is maternity care, and recently, with the full support of the profession, we published "Maternity Matters", which makes it absolutely clear that—as in so many other aspects of medical care—we cannot simply defend the status quo. We need to ensure that we configure our services so that we save the lives of more babies; for instance, in Manchester—although there is still an issue of contention that has yet to be concluded—there are proposals by local health care specialists and local clinicians to save the lives of 40 babies a year. Such evidence cannot be disregarded.

Paddy Tipping: Are not more than 90 per cent. of people who use our hospitals satisfied and think that the service is good? Those who have criticisms want basic things such as better catering and cleaner facilities?

Alan Johnson: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. In addition, many patients would like to choose how they are operated on—for instance, non-invasive surgery. If their consultant is not au fait with the latest techniques and cannot carry out non-invasive surgery, the patient should be able to say, "I'm sorry but that's the kind of operation I want". That would be good not only for patient choice but for driving up standards among clinicians.

Andrew Lansley: As the Secretary of State knows, it is the Government's promise that in two years' time every mother should be able to exercise full choice about the circumstances in which they give birth, be it in a consultant-led maternity unit, a midwife-led birth unit or at home. Will the Secretary of State tell us how many additional midwives he believes will be necessary over the next two years to deliver that promise of choice?

Alan Johnson: I cannot say that at this stage because it depends on how things pan out in every area, but it is clear that an increase in the number of midwives will be needed. If we are offering that choice to every woman in the country, we must ensure that we deliver on it with the right staffing in the right places, which means that we cannot pull a figure out of the air, but there is an area of consensus—even between the Treasury Bench and the Opposition Front Bench—on which we can work to make sure that things are properly implemented.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the Secretary of State, but I am afraid that I cannot see how, locally, primary care trusts and hospitals can deliver the number of midwives that are necessary unless there is at least some work force planning to make that happen. The number of midwives, and the number of training places in midwifery, went down in each of the past two years, and the Secretary of State must know that in the past five years the number of live births has gone up by 13 per cent., whereas the number of full-time-equivalent midwives has gone up by only 5 per cent. We are therefore more than 1,000 short of where we need to be now, let alone where we need to be in order to extend choice in two years' time. So will the Secretary of State promise today that he will go back and look at "Maternity Matters" and put some of the work force planning into "Maternity Matters" that simply was not there?

Alan Johnson: I think the hon. Gentleman is right in his assumption that we will need to get the work force right. He is also right that this is non-negotiable; it has to be in place by the end of 2009. He is also right in pointing out that there has been an increase in the number of midwives since we entered government. Putting all that together, I undertake to ensure that we have the proper work force planning in place at the right time to ensure that we can meet the commitments set out in "Maternity Matters".

Scalding Injuries

Mary Creagh: What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on reducing scalding injuries in the home.

Dawn Primarolo: I am not aware of any specific discussions with ministerial colleagues on reducing scalding within the home. However, the Department of Health supports policies and initiatives aimed at reducing and preventing the incidence of these injuries.

Mary Creagh: Keith Judkins, consultant anaesthetist at Pinderfields hospital in Wakefield and a member of the British Burn Association, tells me that every year 600 cases of first-degree burns are admitted to hospital, most of which involve children under five who have fallen into scalding hot bathwater, and each year 20 people die. A consultation to look at installing thermostatic mixing valves in the home is currently ongoing with the Department for Communities and Local Government. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that huge emotional and physical trauma costs, as well as the costs to the NHS, are taken into account in any analysis of whether to proceed with that measure?

Dawn Primarolo: I congratulate my hon. Friend, who has worked incredibly hard on ensuring that this campaign is drawn to our attention. I confirm to her that submissions will be made on that during the review of part G of the building regulations. I would go further and say to her that a vital role is also played by the third sector, and organisations such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. We need to look again at how they are operating. None the less, I agree that both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, and the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), as part of his responsibilities for older people, need to consider how we can address the shocking figures that she draws to our attention.

Mark Pritchard: Of course, elderly people are also affected by scalding, and one of the most effective ways of dealing with that is to get more help into elderly people's homes. Does the Minister share my concern that this year, because of the underfunding of Shropshire primary care trust, the taxpayers of Shropshire, through Shropshire county council, will have to pay an extra £650,000 for community care? Will she agree to meet me and a delegation of other Shropshire MPs to discuss this issue?

Dawn Primarolo: Surely the hon. Gentleman will accept that the PCT in his area has actually seen an increase in funding. Surely he would also accept that in dealing with this very important issue we need to look at resources in local government, in the health service and in the third sector and ensure that there is a proper response to advice and support, particularly for the vulnerable. Surely he also accepts that he cannot come to the House and support a party that wants to cut spending on the national health service and then plead for more money for his constituency.

NHS Review

David Anderson: What discussions will be held with trade unions in the course of the NHS review conducted by Sir Ara Darzi.

Alan Johnson: Lord Darzi and I are already discussing a range of issues with staff, patients, the public and key stakeholders including the trade unions both locally and nationally to ensure their full involvement in the NHS next stage review.

David Anderson: I thank the Secretary of State for his response. I advise him that the work of the trade unions in the past 10 years in helping to put in place the NHS plan and "Agenda for Change" is a model that should be adapted in the review, so that the unions continue to play a comprehensive and supportive role in making the NHS even better than it is today.

Alan Johnson: I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, Lord Darzi was in his constituency yesterday, while visiting Gateshead PCT, which might be just outside his constituency. He has also met the leaders of all the major trade unions, and I very much agree with my hon. Friend that the trade union input has been positive throughout the NHS plan and all the events over the past 10 years. This is a huge opportunity for us to re-engage with the work force, which includes, of course, their trade unions.

Tony Baldry: Representatives of the midwives told the Oxfordshire health overview and scrutiny committee the other day that proposals to downgrade services at Horton hospital from consultant-led to midwife-led were utterly unacceptable. Will the Secretary of State and his team listen to the advice of the Royal College of Midwives and the Royal College of Nursing on those reconfiguration proposals, or will they simply be brushed to one side?

Alan Johnson: They will not be brushed to one side, and the hon. Gentleman knows full well that those proposals are local and are led by clinicians locally. I announced in my first week in this role that I would pass on all cases referred to me by the overview and scrutiny committee to the independent reconfiguration panel, which is clinician-led, because it is very important that those issues are driven locally, by clinicians in the area. The Royal College of Midwives, which has been to see me already, has very eloquent spokespeople on this issue, and they will be listened to—of course, they will—but as for my involvement, it is right that politicians stay back and allow those working in the health service and those responsible for health care to lead the proposals.

Clive Efford: May I inform my right hon. Friend that one of my local newspapers claims to have a leaked e-mail from a middle manager of the Queen Mary's hospital trust that sets out plans to downgrade accident and emergency services, close maternity and paediatric services and make cuts of £60 million? Such headlines will make it very difficult for Lord Ara Darzi to enter into a meaningful dialogue with local people and consult on the shape of future local services. What is Lord Darzi doing to address those speculative headlines, which are making it very difficult to have a meaningful dialogue about the future of our services?

Alan Johnson: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, because such headlines are totally unhelpful.  [ Interruption. ] Of course, they are driven in part by the Conservative party's opportunism. I shall give an example of the paradox. A couple of weeks ago, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) used an Opposition day to debate the very important issue of stroke care—it is absolutely essential that we debate such issues—and he quoted a National Audit Office report that came out in 2006 and said that, as a result of more efficient practice, £20 million could be saved annually, 550 deaths avoided and more than 1,700 people would fully recover who would previously have been disabled for life. We therefore have to change the health service to provide those kind of services. However, at the same time as pushing that, the Conservatives ask us for a moratorium on any change whatsoever. There cannot be such a moratorium, and we need to deal with the issues that my hon. Friend raises, not in headlines but in proper deliberative debate. That is what the Darzi review is all about.

Richard Taylor: Will the Secretary of State encourage Lord Darzi to engage one to one with all MPs in whose areas things are likely to change?

Alan Johnson: I will encourage Lord Darzi to deal on a one-to-one basis with all MPs. I am writing to all MPs to let them know where Lord Darzi, David Nicholson and the other 60 clinicians will be over the summer period, so that if any MP wants to turn up and perhaps give up a couple of days in Tuscany, he or she can go there and chat to him at leisure.

Norman Lamb: May I refer the Secretary of State to his Department's press release on ministerial responsibilities? Under Lord Darzi's name, it says:
	"Lords business is being covered by a Lords Whip."
	I understand that Lord Darzi intends to spend little time in the other place, not to deal with any legislation and to answer few questions. Given that he is embarking on a fairly fundamental review of how the health service operates, dealing with the sort of issues raised by the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson), how on earth is Parliament supposed to hold him to account? Is this not precisely the sort of arrangement that the new Prime Minister indicated he opposed, whereby, effectively, Parliament is being sidelined?

Alan Johnson: With due respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that that is the primary concern about health services. My belief is that Baroness Royall will cover many of the questions. She will be accountable on behalf of the Government. I know that the hon. Gentleman thinks a lot about these things. It is to everyone's benefit to have someone of the reputation and skill of Lord Darzi, who will continue to practise two days a week, as well as meeting MPs individually and doing all the other things. He will continue to be a leading clinician in the health service and he will carry out the review, which will take up an awful lot of his time. It is innovative that not only do we have a clinician of his standing to lead the review—along with many other clinicians—we also have him as a Minister to ensure that, unlike with the Turner report or the Leitch report, we have someone in Government to carry the report through. That is of more interest to the public than who is answering questions in the Lords.

Michael Penning: May I draw the Secretary of State back to the original question and ask him about his discussions with Unison in relation to the cuts around the country? Recently, the Secretary of State was quoted in the  Health Service Journal as saying:
	"We have listened a bit too much to the British Medical Association and not enough to unions like Unison."
	Interestingly enough, I agree with him. Perhaps he would like to listen to Karen Jennings, who is Unison's head of health, and who said:
	"These 600 compulsory redundancies will resonate across the NHS and strike fear into the hearts of local communities."
	The cuts are based on deficits, not clinical care. Will the Secretary of State step in and stop those cuts, which are affecting care in our hospitals?

Alan Johnson: First, may I welcome the hon. Gentleman, who is making his first outing at the Dispatch Box? I disagree profoundly with him and with other Opposition Members on this issue. As I understand it, they are asking for a moratorium on any change.  [ Interruption. ] Yes, I read the seven steps. Step one was to have a moratorium on reconfigurations. Indeed— [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Secretary of State reply.

Alan Johnson: Indeed, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), who I believe represents David Cameron's Conservatives—I am not sure whether that is the same party as the one to which the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) belongs—called at Prime Minister's questions, on the back of the London review, for absolutely no further changes. Of course Opposition Members like to put out scare stories—that is part of their politics at the moment. However, the policy issue is that, with advances in medical science and new technology, and with changes in demography, we have to change our health service when it comes to issues such as stroke care, which we debated a couple of weeks ago, in order to save more lives. It would be perverse if we were to put a moratorium on saving lives.

Accident and Emergency Departments

Bob Neill: How many accident and emergency departments are planned to be downgraded; and if he will make a statement.

Ben Bradshaw: Any proposals for major changes to services are for the national health service locally and are designed to improve care for patients.
	There is a well-established and well-understood process for managing consultations on such proposals so that patients, staff, the public and other local stakeholders can have their say and help to inform decisions.

Bob Neill: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will he therefore undertake to publish the clinical basis on which the Government justify their decision to increase the minimum catchment area for an accident and emergency department from 300,000, as recommended by the Royal College of Surgeons, to 450,000, as recommended apparently by no one apart from his own Department, and explain how, by coincidence, that fits in with the proposed population that would arise if the accident and emergency department at Queen Mary's Sidcup were to be closed, as revealed in a memo that was written by NHS officials and not by any Member of the House?

Ben Bradshaw: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman wait for the proposals that we are expecting from his local area. I am sure that once local health managers in his area publish those proposals, they will justify them on clinical grounds. A recent statement from the British Association of Emergency Medicine recommended that, in order to provide safe emergency services around the clock,
	"there needs to be immediate access to intensive care, anaesthetics, acute medicine, general surgery and orthopaedic trauma".
	For the best use of resources, a figure of 450,000 was indeed mentioned, but this is not a one-size-fits-all issue. It will depend on the local circumstances. He should wait for the local consultation.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: My hon. Friend may be aware that a not very sophisticated game is going on, with some members of some political parties in this House announcing that A and E departments are going to close when there is no question of them even being considered for closure. Immediately after an election, however, those same hon. Members suddenly announce that the departments have been saved. I hope that my hon. Friend will be a little less magisterial and a little more political and tell us firmly which A and E departments are going to close and which are unquestionably not going to. In that way, he will be doing us all a favour.

Ben Bradshaw: I do not think that I have ever been described as magisterial before, and I am always happy to be as political as Mr. Speaker will allow. Many of these decisions are made at local level and not by me, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the fact that an awful lot of stir-mongering and scaremongering is going on out there. I could quote a number of examples, such as the A and E department at the Hinchingbrooke health care trust in Huntingdon. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) confidently predicted that that facility would close but, following recent consultation, a decision has been taken not to close it.

Nicholas Soames: Will the Minister acknowledge that there has been no scaremongering in respect of the Princess Royal hospital in Haywards Heath, which is part of the West Sussex PCT? It has been proposed that the hospital's A and E department be closed and its maternity services withdrawn. Clinicians and local GPs feel that that would be unsafe and unwise, although they accept that other reconfigurations need to be made. Therefore, will he assure me that the PCT will be forbidden from going ahead with the proposals?

Ben Bradshaw: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said already that he will pass on to the independent review panel any proposed changes referred to by local scrutiny committees. He and I have both said that it is very important for patients and local Members of Parliament to engage in the consultation process, and that clinical concerns about proposals should be made plain. However, the driving force behind all the changes is the objective of improving care for patients. The technology is changing and, to save lives, local care should be given where that is possible and necessary.

Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend is no doubt aware of last Friday's shocking decision by the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust to withdraw from the Pathway project, which will have a devastating effect on service provision in Leicestershire. What steps is he taking to reassure the public and local Members of Parliament that services will be protected? When was he told of the decision, and will he meet a delegation of hon. Members to discuss this very important matter?

Ben Bradshaw: I should be happy to meet such a delegation, and I have already offered to meet my hon. Friend and the former Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt). The decision is shocking, yes, but perhaps not so surprising, given that the project's projected costs had spiralled considerably. I can well understand the concern that he expresses on behalf of the people of Leicester, but I am assured by the local health service management that the funds originally proposed to be spent on the project will still be available to improve services in Leicester, and I look forward to examining, with my hon. Friend and others, how that can best be done for the future.

Robert Goodwill: I cannot even start to describe how angry doctors, nurses, unions and patients in Scarborough are after last week's announcement of 600 job losses at Scarborough hospital. That is one third of the hospital's staff. Will the Minister come to Scarborough this summer to see for himself the effects that the cuts are going to have, and to let us convince him that we need to maintain full A and E cover at that hospital?

Ben Bradshaw: As far as I understand it, discussions on the proposals that the hon. Gentleman mentions have not even begun yet, but I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen), who is responsible for the heath service in the north-east, would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and the delegation to discuss the issue. As we said earlier, a difficult, tough decision was taken last year by our predecessor team. For years and years, we had a system in which a small number of health trusts were allowed simply to roll over deficits from one year to another, and well-performing trusts had to bail them out from year to year, but that is not acceptable or sustainable. Tough and painful decisions have had to be made in some areas, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be happy to discuss them with the hon. Gentleman.

David Taylor: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the emerging strategy used in some parts of the country, and particularly in the capital city, is for health authorities to require the diversion of trauma and complex emergency cases away from accident and emergency departments to private hospitals and elsewhere? That kicks the feet away from accident and emergency departments that are already threatened, and brings about the closures that the bureaucrats want.

Ben Bradshaw: No—and the decisions are best left to the people whose job it is to deliver high-quality care, at value, to their local communities in a safe and appropriate way. If my hon. Friend wants to write to me with any examples of cases where there are such fears, and where that is having an impact on the quality of patient care, I will gladly respond to him.

NHS Reconfiguration

Douglas Carswell: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the reconfiguration of the NHS.

Ann Keen: The NHS is changing because medicine and treatments are changing. If we do not keep up with the times, services will not keep on improving. Local services are changing for the benefit of patients, and that is what the NHS is there to ensure. That may mean changes to how surgery is delivered, who is admitted to hospital, and how effective community care is. There are so many issues involved in reconfiguration, which can make a huge improvement to patient care.

Douglas Carswell: Will the Minister give an assurance to my constituents, 9,000 of whom have signed a petition on the subject, that reconfiguration will not mean the closure of the Peter Bruff ward in Clacton and District hospital?

Ann Keen: What is important to local people is the consultation. I am aware that the hon. Gentleman was involved in that and has met representatives from his primary care trust to discuss the issue. That is what I encourage him to do, because that is what he believes in. He believes in local accountability, and that is what he has in his constituency. As a founder member of the Cornerstone group, surely he agrees with removing decision making from Whitehall and making it into local accountability.

Howard Stoate: In order to maximise the effectiveness of the health service, we have to ensure that we use to the full the considerable talents available to us in the NHS staff base. Has my hon. Friend yet had a chance to look at the all-party pharmacy group report on the future of pharmacy, and has she been able to make an assessment of how pharmacists could take the pressure off general practitioners and accident and emergency departments to improve effectiveness and efficiency in the health service?

Ann Keen: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Of course the skills mix in the health service is crucial to the changes that we can make to patient care. The advancements that pharmacists have brought about for us by operating out of health centres in larger supermarkets, and by being there to advise on many health issues, has generally improved the health of patients. As my hon. Friend said, the skills mix is crucial to future work force planning and the delivery of care for NHS patients.

Tim Loughton: Last week, the  Worthing Herald reported that Worthing's accident and emergency department had 1,258 admissions. That equates to 65,500 people visiting every year. Under reconfiguration proposals—not scare stories—the PCT proposes to close that accident and emergency department, and it expects people to join the car park that is the A27 and go to either Chichester or Brighton. How many of those people does the Minister believe are timewasters who do not actually need an accident and emergency department in the hospital of the largest town in Sussex?

Ann Keen: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue on accident and emergency services, but how could I possibly know who was attending the accident and emergency department without looking at the figures? I would expect the local management and the local PCT to do that, and I would expect the local MP to conduct a responsible consultation to ensure that patient care is delivered appropriately in the accident and emergency department. That is why reconfiguration of the health service can be good for patients, as I am sure he would agree.

Vincent Cable: As NHS configuration depends not just on clinical judgments and local opinion but on the financial consequences of the tariff system, does the Department have any proposals to review the tariff regime, which almost certainly undervalues accident and emergency work relative to specialist surgery?

Ann Keen: All areas are for review, all areas are being consulted on and everything must be looked at to make sure that we are delivering good, effective patient care.

In-vitro Fertilisation

Brian Jenkins: What the average cost of in-vitro fertilisation treatment in the NHS was in (a) cash and (b) real terms in each of the past 10 years.

Dawn Primarolo: The Department does not collect information on that expenditure.

Brian Jenkins: I am sorry to hear that because my right hon. Friend must be aware that there are claims that regulation has added greatly to the cost of providing that treatment. Will she comment on the fact that regulation adds greatly to the cost?

Dawn Primarolo: I agree with my hon. Friend that regulation, which is very important in this area for safety, does increase costs. In the NHS those would be met from the clinical budget. I confirm that I am taking steps to ensure that information on the provision of IVF by each primary care trust, including information on local criteria, expenditure, social access and work on IVF, is available to us. The Department will make available later today the details of that work, which is funded by the Department in partnership with the Infertility Network UK to address the very points that my hon. Friend raises.

Maria Miller: Women in Basingstoke still have to wait until they are 36 years of age to receive IVF treatment. For some who cannot readily conceive, that will mean more than a decade's wait. What is the value of NICE guidelines to the residents of Basingstoke when the Hampshire primary care trust can so readily ignore them?

Dawn Primarolo: I am sure that the hon. Lady is putting her powerful argument to the PCT as it decides its spending on IVF— [ Interruption. ] If she calms down for a moment, I will tell her that I sympathise with the concerns that she raises about inequitable access to IVF, which is why I am undertaking work to make sure that all the access criteria and other issues that are raised in regard to IVF are properly dealt with in the local area. She should return to her PCT and make her powerful case to it, as I will do as the Health Minister.

Kevin Barron: When the survey is complete, will my right hon. Friend publish information about when each PCT will meet the NICE guideline that was published years ago?

Dawn Primarolo: Certainly, that would have to be part of the consideration. Some PCTs offer one cycle, and there is dispute about whether it is a complete cycle, while others offer different types of treatment. Those are matters that we will need to consider.

John Bercow: I think that I heard the right hon. Lady refer to the need for the proper expression of criteria on the subject in the local area. As a matter of principle, does she believe that such treatment should be uniform across the country or the subject of local discretion?

Dawn Primarolo: I believe that it is the role of a Health Minister, along with those who advise NICE, to set the standards for equitable access across the country. That would always be mitigated by local decisions on expenditure after proper consultation, but the matter that needs to be addressed now is what is available, how much it costs and how it varies across PCTs, and then how to deal with an issue that is important to so many people in this country.

Dari Taylor: My right hon. Friend will know that the science and practice of IVF treatment has moved on. More and more, there is a desire for single embryo transfer, which would reduce health hazards and be beneficial for both mothers and babies. The point has been made around the Chamber today that until we have a clear statement from the Minister about what one full cycle is—whether that is three single embryo transfers and whether that would be universally acceptable—single embryo transfer will not happen.

Dawn Primarolo: I congratulate my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who are members of the all-party group on infertility, which today published an excellent report covering many of those areas and which I have had a chance to consider. With regard to her specific point, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority is considering the matter and is to advise me of the precise points that are raised in the report. I will certainly make that information available to Parliament when I have it.

Patient Safety

Roger Berry: What action has been taken to ensure that people with a learning disability are safeguarded in the NHS since the publication of the National Patient Safety Agency's 2004 report, "Understanding the patient safety issues for people with learning disabilities".

Ivan Lewis: We have taken a number of steps, including the NPSA published guidance on supporting adults who have learning disabilities and swallowing difficulties; the Healthcare Commission audit of learning disability services; our work on developing a response to the report from the Disability Rights Commission; the establishment of an independent inquiry following Mencap's report, "Death by Indifference"; and our commitment to refresh the White Paper, "Valuing People".

Roger Berry: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's reply. The health inequalities of people with a learning disability have been well known for many years, thanks to the work of the Government, Mencap, the DRC and many others. What plans do the Government have to introduce annual health checks for people with a learning disability, and how is the treatment of those people to be monitored and evaluated?

Ivan Lewis: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend—that has been a source of concern for some considerable time. We have evidence that the system is nowhere near good enough in terms of access to primary and acute NHS care. There is a commitment on the table to regular screening of people with learning disabilities, particularly where they are at high risk of particular health conditions. For example, we have had discussions with GPs as part of contractual negotiations on the question of a guaranteed commitment to screening. Unfortunately, thus far we have not been able to reach agreement on that issue, but it remains Government policy. Ensuring that the NHS, at every level, takes its responsibilities to treat people with learning disabilities as it would treat any other patient is a top priority—that is non-negotiable. We need to look at all the levers that are available to us to ensure that primary care and acute services treat people with learning disabilities as equal citizens as regards accessing the health service.

Brian Iddon: It is common for people with Down's syndrome to have heart defects—they are born that way. In 1997, it was very difficult to get those conditions treated in the NHS. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Down's Syndrome Association on carrying out its vigorous campaign in the early days of this Government, which has helped to change the culture of the NHS and introduce training for medical students about people with all learning difficulties?

Ivan Lewis: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The access of people with Down's syndrome to specialist heart care is absolutely crucial to their longevity and quality of life. A constituent of mine, Mr. Alan Quinn, has a daughter with a learning disability and Down's syndrome who recently went into Alder Hey hospital for such heart surgery and had excellent NHS care. He is regularly keeping me updated with her progress. There have been tremendous advances in that specialist support, particularly for people with Down's syndrome, but we need to do a lot better.

Dental Health

Charlotte Atkins: What recent assessment he has made of the state of dental health in England.

Ann Keen: I thank my hon. Friend for her question, which gives me the opportunity to say that oral health in England is the best since records began. The proportion of 12-year-old children with decayed teeth fell from 93 per cent. in 1973 to 38 per cent. in 2003. Over a similar period the number, of adults with no natural teeth fell from 38 per cent. to 11 per cent. of the adult population.

Charlotte Atkins: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to her new role, which is richly deserved. Does she recognise the beneficial effects of fluoridated water to dental health, given the stark contrast between the good dental health of children in the fluoridated Birmingham area and that of those in the Manchester area, which is not fluoridated? What will she do to encourage strategic health authorities to promote fluoridation in areas where tooth decay among children is unacceptably high? After 2008, for the very first time, the British Fluoridation Society will no longer benefit from central funding. I am concerned that strategic health authorities are falling behind—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister will manage a reply.

Ann Keen: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. I agree that fluoridation of water offers the best prospect of reducing inequalities in oral health. That is why we have amended relevant legislation to give local communities a real choice on whether to have fluoridated water. I congratulate her on becoming known as a champion by the British Fluoridation Society, and for the work that it has done. Strategic health authorities will have guidance from our Department, but the consultation will remain local. I am pleased to say that funding has been acquired until the point at which we look at the issue again, but I assure her that we shall monitor the situation carefully.

James Gray: Oral hygiene in England is of the highest standard, partly because of the advances of medical science. However, does the Minister agree that unless we can find a way of reviving the provision of dental hygiene on the national health service—in a county such as Wiltshire, it is virtually non-existent—those high standards of oral health will inevitably decline?

Ann Keen: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the work he has done in the area of dental care. Oral hygiene is paramount to the prevention of decay, and we have continued to train and re-train technologists and dental hygienists, and to encourage local PCTs to get involved in the commissioning of such work.

Ian Cawsey: I welcome my hon. Friend to her new role. I am sure that she agrees that better dental health would be helped by better NHS provision, particularly in our poorer communities. I recently met a constituent who is training to be a dentist, and wishes to be an NHS dentist, but the practice she is placed with, which does NHS work, will take her on only if she solely does private work. That is because the NHS now pays for procedure, and newly qualified dentists take too long to do them. Is it not time that the Department considered requiring newly trained dentists to spend part of their career in the NHS? Otherwise, what is the point of the taxpayer paying to increase the number of training places?

Ann Keen: My hon. Friend raises a good point. The contract that has been put in place recently is working well, but there is always room to consider everything and make progress, so I am very interested in his remarks.

Richard Younger-Ross: The Minister's predecessor, along with Teignbridge district council, the Teignbridge primary care trust, myself and a local dentist, helped to provide good quality dental care for anyone in Teignbridge who wanted it. I congratulate her predecessor's work for the Department on that. The new Devon primary care trust, however, is telling dentists in Teignbridge that they have to take new patients from anywhere in the county, which will undo all the good work of her predecessor. Will she consider that issue and find a way to protect the services provided by the dentists of Teignbridge to local residents?

Ann Keen: I suggest that as the local Member of Parliament, the hon. Gentleman engage in a serious conversation with the PCT and that a consultation is carried out with the local community. I am sure that that would help them to decide their future.

NHS Dentistry

Nick Palmer: If he will make a statement on the provision of NHS dentistry in local health centres.

Ann Keen: Primary care trusts salaried dentists already provide services for patients in some health centres and I agree that including a wider range of NHS primary care dental services would definitely benefit patients. The dental reforms launched last year give primary care trusts greater flexibility to locate NHS dental practices in health centres—a practice with which I firmly agree.

Nick Palmer: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her new position. Does she agree that one of the traditional problems with retaining dentists in the national health service is that some choose to build up a practice using the NHS, only to turn around and tell their patients that they are going private, and that if they want to keep their dentists they must go private, too. The Stapleford care centre in my constituency has retained the surgery and has dentists working there on condition that, if they leave the NHS, they must also leave the surgery. I commend that as a model of retaining dentists in the NHS.

Ann Keen: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. Stapleford health centre should be congratulated. It is good policy and practice, and the way in which health care could and should be delivered in future, when health centres share not only dentists, but pharmacists and all the aspects of health care that the community requires. That forms part of some reconfigurations, and is certainly part of Lord Ara Darzi's review.

Christopher Fraser: The Norfolk local dental committee told me that the new dental contract is "a shambles". It also stated:
	"In order to receive funding, Dentists are required to meet Government targets that leave them without the time they would like to spend on patients to provide appropriate preventative care."
	How would the Under-Secretary answer dentists in my constituency who feel let down by the system?

Ann Keen: The hon. Gentleman should engage with the dentists and the PCTs. I am happy to accept any correspondence from him and give any assistance, if I can.

Paul Truswell: In autumn this year, a new local improvement finance trust—LIFT—health centre opens in Yeadon in my constituency. Will my hon. Friend ensure that Leeds PCT takes all the appropriate steps to provide the two dental chairs that have long been promised to tackle the shortage of NHS treatment in the area?

Ann Keen: I suggest that the PCT look at excellent examples that are in progress throughout the country. I am happy to direct the PCT to examine those at any time my hon. Friend likes.

Children's Palliative Care/Hospice Services

Bob Spink: What recent representations he has received on the funding of children's palliative care and children's hospices.

Ivan Lewis: The Department has received 22 representations on the funding of children's palliative care and children's hospices in the past six months.

Bob Spink: I know that the Under-Secretary will join me in paying the warmest possible tribute to those who work in and volunteer for children's palliative care. I am grateful to the former Prime Minister for his personal help in getting the £27 million stop-gap funding and the review of funding for children's hospices.
	The Association for Children's Palliative Care and the Association of Children's Hospices want children's palliative care services to be included in the national indicator for disabled children that is currently being developed as part of the public service agreements for the next comprehensive spending review. Will the Under-Secretary delight the House by saying today that he will consider that suggestion favourably?  [Interruption.]

Ivan Lewis: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says, I always delight the House. It is a good sign when the Secretary of State says that, but I am not sure whether any other hon. Members would agree. Although I might delight the House with such a commitment, it could be a seriously career-limiting announcement. Of course, decisions about PSAs will be made in the context of our comprehensive spending review settlement. However, the £27 million that we have made available, the independent review that we have commissioned and our commitment to publish a national strategy on palliative care for children, alongside the significant investment in supporting disabled children and their families, mean that the specific needs of palliative care for children will have a high priority in the period ahead.

Stephen O'Brien: To be realistic, given that the Government have broken their promise and failed to fulfil their manifesto commitment to double investment for palliative care, broken the former Chancellor's compact with the voluntary sector by using charitable gifts to subsidise NHS care, broken their promise to implement payment by results for palliative care and continue to insult children's hospices by funding them at 4.5 per cent. compared with 32 per cent. for adult hospices, will the Under-Secretary now steal and implement our policies of equal funding for children's hospices and a national tariff for palliative care?

Ivan Lewis: The problem with the hon. Gentleman's point is that the Conservative party makes all sorts of uncosted spending commitments while simultaneously suggesting that it will cut taxes if it ever returns to power. That is an entirely disingenuous position. When the Conservative party was in power, hospices were expected to depend far more heavily on charitable donations. The Government have started to make significant state investment available for hospices for the first time, including a recent major capital investment. There is much more to do, but we will take no lessons from the Conservative party on hospice funding.

Infection Control

Greg Mulholland: What plans he has to improve infection control in the NHS.

Ann Keen: We already have the hygiene code and an action programme to tackle health care-associated infections, including MRSA. However, the issue remains a priority, and we recently announced an extra £50 million to support local initiatives for front-line staff.

Greg Mulholland: I thank the Minister for her answer and I am pleased to hear that the issue is a priority. May I draw her and the House's attention to the situation in our care homes, where cases of MRSA and clostridium difficile have doubled in recent years? Does the Department have any plans to tackle that growing problem or is it another case where, as with the report on nutritional standards in care homes, the needs of our elderly people in care homes are not being met?

Ann Keen: The needs of elderly people in our care homes are a high priority, and they always will be to me. We have doubled our teams to help in acute trusts. We need to look at the same co-operation with social services for care homes because the incidence of MRSA in them is far too high. We have a lot to do on training and skills to see how we can correct that.

Sustainable Railways

Ruth Kelly: With permission, I would like to make a statement about how the Government intend to strengthen the country's railways over the next seven years and beyond. Our proposal is the most ambitious strategy for growth on the railways in more than 50 years. This statement is being made against a background not of decline or crisis, as in the past, but of remarkable success for our railway network.
	Of course, anyone who travels regularly by rail, as many of us in the House do, will know that big challenges remain before our country has the rail system that it needs. There is no room for complacency, but the measures put in place since the Hatfield tragedy mean that our railways are safer than ever before. Reliability, which declined sharply after Hatfield, is improving strongly on most lines and passenger satisfaction has improved. There has been sustained investment in the network, such as in the modernisation of the west coast main line and in new rolling stock. The result is that more freight and more people are travelling by rail than at any time for 50 years.
	Our challenge today is not about managing decline. Instead, it is about how we can build on that solid progress to provide a railway that carries more passengers on more and better trains, and on more frequent, reliable, safe and affordable services. That needs the Government, working with the industry, the regulator and passenger groups, to take action in three main areas: first, to secure continued improvements in safety and reliability; secondly, to achieve a major increase in capacity to meet rising demand; and, thirdly, to deliver sustained investment through a fair deal for passengers and the taxpayer. Let me take each in turn.
	Safety has improved and reliability is back to the levels seen before Hatfield, even though we are running many more trains. Those who work on our railways deserve credit for their focus. The White Paper sets out how we intend to continue reducing the risks to passengers and staff on our railways. We also intend to build on the improvements in reliability. Currently, 88 per cent. of services arrive on time. By 2014, I want that figure to reach 92.6 per cent., through investment in new rolling stock, maintenance and equipment, which would make our railway one of the most reliable in Europe. For the first time, we will require the industry to concentrate on cutting by one quarter delays of more than 30 minutes, which cause the most inconvenience to passengers.
	As safety and reliability have improved, passenger numbers have increased, and overcrowding has become a real issue for many commuters. The White Paper contains the biggest single commitment for a generation to increasing the capacity of the railway through more services and longer trains. By 2014, we will have invested £10 billion to make this happen. Starting now, and over the next seven years, we will see: 1,300 new carriages to ease overcrowding in London and other cities such as Birmingham, Cardiff, Leeds and Manchester; £600 million of investment to tackle bottlenecks at Birmingham New Street and Reading stations; the £5.5 billion transformation of Thameslink, which provides a vital north-south artery into and across London; and new plans put in place for the development of each of our main lines, including the next generation of inter-city trains and signalling. The Government are also committed to ensuring that we close no rural lines in this period.
	This continued investment will provide nearly 100,000 new seats for passengers on inter-city and commuter trains to our major cities. Our proposals will accommodate a further seven years of record passenger growth and, at the same time, start to tackle some of the worst overcrowding on some of our busiest services. There will be some 14,500 more seats in the peak hour on Thameslink alone and, while Crossrail remains subject to financial and parliamentary approval, it has the potential to deliver a similar scale of improvement for east-west services in the capital.
	The White Paper also outlines other improvements that groups such as Passenger Focus tell us passengers want. These include a radical simplification of the fares structure and the modernisation of tickets to allow people to use smartcards; a further £150 million to be spent on 150 stations in the towns and cities outside London that form the backbone of the national network; better and safer stations from Wolverhampton to Dartmouth, Cleethorpes to Swansea, and Barking to Chester; and support for Transport 2000's idea of local station plans so that people can better access the railway and make it part of a greener travel choice. We are also investing £200 million in a strategic freight network that will help to reduce the congestion on our roads and the environmental impact of moving goods.
	Sustained investment will be needed to underpin all this. Having fought its way back on to a stable financial footing following the demise of Railtrack, it is essential that the industry maintain financial discipline. Both passengers and taxpayers have suffered the consequences of financial crises, and we will not allow a return to those days. The challenge is to deliver the sustained investment that the rail system needs while continuing to protect passengers, but we must also strike a fair balance between the call on taxpayers and fare payers. We are determined to continue to protect passengers, so any increases in regulated ticket prices will remain capped at the retail prices index plus 1 per cent. Such tickets account for over half the use of the railway and include season tickets and saver fares.
	There has been some recent debate about unregulated fares, which operators can vary to respond to customer demand. Some unregulated ticket prices have therefore increased. I will monitor this closely and today I am committing to give Passenger Focus more say in the specification of future franchises before they are tendered. At the same time, many other tickets have been discounted. In fact, about 80 per cent. of passengers do not use the headline-catching first and peak tickets, but buy either a regulated ticket or a discounted product. A significant number of those fares have fallen in real terms over the past 10 years, with many deals cheaper in cash terms than they were under British Rail.
	The result is that many more people are now choosing to travel by rail—some 340 million more passengers each year than in 1997. This strong growth also means that the railways need less taxpayer subsidy. In the difficult years of Railtrack, it was the taxpayer who footed the bill. The proportion of subsidy funding nearly doubled in five years. It is right that we now seek to return it closer to historic levels. I believe that we are meeting our goals of protecting passengers and achieving a fair balance between the taxpayer and the travelling public, while delivering the necessary investment that we all agree is necessary.
	Today's White Paper sets out our ambition for a railway capable of carrying double the number of passengers and twice the amount of freight by 2030, with modern trains and a network whose reliability and safety are among the best in Europe. This is not a White Paper that rests on distant promises of all-or-nothing projects. Schemes such as new north-south lines may have their place, and we will consider them if and as the need arises. This is a strategy that seeks to deliver real improvements that reflect passengers' priorities and that builds on the real achievements and successes of our rail system over the past decade.
	Twenty-five years ago, our railways were advertising "This is the age of the train", but it was against a background of falling demand and chronic underinvestment in trains and infrastructure. Perhaps that claim was premature. If we can build on the progress of the past 10 years, with sustained investment and increased capacity while harnessing the full environmental gains of rail transport, we will be entering a new and exciting era of rail travel. This White Paper is a resounding vote of confidence in Britain's railways and I commend it to the House.

Theresa Villiers: First, may I say that we welcome progress on Thameslink, Birmingham New Street, Reading and longer trains and platforms, but that I fear that the House should restrain its enthusiasm until we have seen contracts signed and the work actually under way?
	I have to press the Secretary of State on a number of important issues. When it comes to Thameslink, Birmingham and Reading, has the budget definitely been committed for the whole of those projects or are they dependent in any way on the outcome of the comprehensive spending review? Is the whole of Thameslink 2000 now fully funded or only the northern parts? Are the 300 new carriages trailed today part of the re-announced inter-city express programme or are they in addition to it? Does the Secretary of State intend to keep the cap on saver fares or not?
	Above all, what has happened to Crossrail? The Secretary of State told us that she does not believe in distant promises, but yet again it is another false dawn for Crossrail, which is getting more distant by the day. Apparently, it does not feature in the Government's plan for the next 30 years of our rail system—despite announcement after announcement by Ministers, despite £254 million spent on preparation and despite a clear commitment from the previous Prime Minister. Today's statement is a slap in the face for Londoners and for the City of London, for which no amount of warm words from the Prime Minister can possibly make up.
	The point is that we have heard all of this before. Today's hefty slab of paper is the latest in a long line of ever denser and longer strategies, reports and initiatives on transport from this Government. If the travelling public could get around on paper promises, there would be no delays, no overcrowding and everyone's journey into work would be blissfully smooth every day—but they cannot. In the last year alone, we have seen commuters go on strike, toilets ripped out of carriages to provide extra standing room and fares hiked by 20 per cent. on a main route into London.
	The reality is that the Government have announced and re-announced virtually all the initiatives that the Secretary of State has outlined today. We were promised Thameslink 2000 so long ago that the former Deputy Prime Minister was still in charge of transport—never mind Thameslink 2000; at this rate, it will be more aptly named Thameslink 3000. Even now, we are getting only part of the scheme that was promised. As for Birmingham New Street, the Government pledged to tackle bottlenecks in the west midlands seven years ago. Longer platforms and 1,000 of the 1,300 carriages mentioned today were actually promised last year. Not one of those projects has been delivered, so why should we believe the Secretary of State now?
	The Blair years have been a litany of broken promises, from which the current Prime Minister cannot distance himself. What about the three-and-a-half hour journey time from Edinburgh that we were promised, or the light rail schemes in Liverpool and Leeds, not to mention the north-south high speed line? What happened to the pledge on safe and secure travel when there has been a 43 per cent. increase in the number of victims of violence recorded by the British Transport police? And this is a good one: seven years ago, the Government promised "improved commuter services", "less overcrowding" and "reduced delays"; today's announcement is therefore an admission of their complete failure to fulfil that promise. Even after fiddling the timetables to meet limp public performance measure targets, more than one in 10 trains in this country run late.
	Thousands of commuters face standing for their entire journey every day of the working week. The overcrowding that blights lines into our major cities is reaching a crisis point that is seriously undermining our quality of life and competitiveness both north and south. The Secretary of State claims real achievements and successes today: well, tell that to the commuters packed so tight in the morning rush hour that if it were animals being transported, it would be a criminal offence to move them in those conditions. Tell that to the passengers on the 6.35 Bedwyn to Paddington service or on the 7.59 Durham to Newcastle service or indeed on any of the other lines that suffer from chronic overcrowding.
	We now come to the biggest let-down of all. Let us remember what the Government's 10-year plan promised:
	"We will seek real reductions in the cost of rail travel".
	Each of the three latest franchises awarded by the Department for Transport will clobber customers with fare rises of nearly 30 per cent. by 2015. Many families are feeling the pinch because of stratospheric fare increases—racing ahead of inflation—inflicted by the Department. In the light of the increases that we have seen over recent years, today's announcement of a fair deal for passengers is, frankly, laughable. The one thing we can guarantee from the Government's plans for the railway is that there are more rail fare hikes to come. They try to point the finger of blame at the train operating companies, but the real culprit is the Secretary of State, who now has a more intrusive role in our railways than in the days of British Rail.
	Today does not usher in a new era on our transport system any more than the rest of the reports, strategies and studies that we have had from the Government in the past decade. The truth is that the Prime Minister cannot blame anyone but himself for the state of our transport system, because the extortionate fare increases for grossly overcrowded trains are his fare increases. The transport broken promises are his broken promises. The Metronet public-private partnership fiasco is definitely his personal fiasco, and the transport failures of the past decade are all his failures.

Ruth Kelly: For a moment, I thought that the hon. Lady might actually welcome some aspects of the White Paper. However, I must proclaim myself disappointed. I thought that she might welcome the significant progress that has been made on our railways. I thought that, for once, we might have a constructive and forward-looking approach. I am very disappointed that she is mimicking the approach of her predecessor, who admitted that, in the Tory party,
	"we've not had a clear transport strategy"
	in recent years and that
	"we've had tactical positions".
	The absence of long-term strategic thinking is characteristic of today's Tory party.
	Let me deal with the specific questions that the hon. Lady asked at the beginning of her comments.  [Interruption.] She asked a few, I tell my hon. Friends. She asked whether Birmingham New Street, Reading and Thameslink were fully funded. They are fully funded in the next output period. She asked whether the 300 carriages were in addition to the 1,000 already announced. They are in addition. Nearly 50 of the 1,000 were accounted for by inter-city carriages. She asked whether saver fares would stay regulated. It is intended to have regulated fares, although, as passengers want a simplified fare structure, it is right that we introduce clear categories of fares that apply across the railways and that everyone can understand. In fact, if we ask passengers what they want, we find that they want to be able readily to compare prices and to know that they are getting value for money. That is what we intend to enable.
	The hon. Lady suggests that there is nothing in the White Paper apart from previous promises. She seems to have forgotten some of the history—it was this Government who had to clear up the mess of the botched privatisation. Network Rail has managed to get a grip on costs for the first time, so we can enter the new funding period seeing steady growth, improvements on reliability, on safety, on performance and a massive investment in new capacity. I wonder what her alternative would be.
	The hon. Lady says that we have not committed today to Crossrail. The Government are committed to that project, which would enhance capacity on the main east-west corridor and ease crowding on services to Paddington and Liverpool Street. As she well knows, the Crossrail Bill is being debated in Parliament and we are considering whether Government funding can be matched with private sector funding. As the Chancellor recently said of the private sector contribution,
	"The verbals are great and if we could cash them in, we'd probably be building two Crossrails"
	by now. We must pin that commitment down.
	The hon. Lady accuses the Government of ripping seats out of trains, but, as a result of the White Paper, 100,000 more seats will be added to trains. How many will be ripped out? Zero.
	The hon. Lady asked why there is no north-south high-speed rail link. I certainly do not make any apology for that. Our approach is based on making targeted investments in the services that matter most for today's passengers. We do not want to spend huge sums of taxpayers' and fare payers' money on risky, expensive technologies that do not deliver what we need to meet passenger demand. I am surprised that it is her policy to commit to a north-south high-speed rail link.  [Interruption.] If it is the policy of the Conservative party, perhaps it should be honest and say so, rather than the hon. Lady now trying from a sedentary position to dissociate herself from it.
	Let me deal with fares. I am pleased that the hon. Lady has today backed off the policy that she held only a few days ago of challenging the idea of premiums from train companies being invested to achieve the capacity that our railway system needs. It is important that we get the balance between the interests of taxpayers and fare payers right, but also that we deliver the investment in capacity that rail travellers need. If the hon. Lady has an alternative to our proposals, I would like her to stand up and state what it is, because I have heard nothing today that challenges our position.
	This is the most positive statement in 50 years on the growth and development of Britain's railways. It sets out in detail what we commit to doing over the next seven years to 2014, as well as our long-term strategy—and it also goes beyond that. In order to address the long-term transport challenges we face, hard choices are required, not warm words. The Tories do not even offer a credible Opposition, let alone a programme for Government.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Government have poured in large sums of money to rebuild the system and have started with a clear view, and they are to be congratulated on coming forward with a strategic policy to cover the next 20 years. However, the Secretary of State will still be dependent on many privatised monopolies running under unimaginative franchises for the delivery of the policy, and she might like to examine where the additional capacity will come from, how many of those companies are capable of delivering that, and how we can plan for a good fare structure when so many of them are determined not to let their passengers know where advantages lie.
	Let me also say that if the Secretary of State gives me the entire £150 million to employ a good architect to rebuild Crewe station, I could deliver for her a sparkling 21st century station of which we would all be proud.

Ruth Kelly: I will certainly consider that as the first representation on how the £150 million should be spent. As my hon. Friend knows, we will now go through a process of iteration with the industry—Network Rail and the train operating companies—on how the money can best be spent to deliver the additional capacity that is needed. We will involve Passenger Focus before the future franchises are re-tendered and let so that it can have a say on fare policy and other specifications that are of concern to passengers.

Susan Kramer: The statement has been a disappointment. There has been a failure to recognise that there is huge pent-up demand for rail. Those of us who truly believe in the green agenda and saw the statement as providing a chance to divert passengers from air and road to rail consider it to be a missed opportunity. I therefore wish to ask the Secretary of State a number of questions.
	What is new in the statement—what has not been announced before in the 10-year Transport Plan 2000, the Strategic Rail Authority plan 2002 or the Network Rail business plan 2007? What new funds have been committed over and above what has previously been announced? The director general of the Association of Train Operating Companies, George Muir, has said that funding for longer trains can be expected to come from "growing passenger revenues". What proportion of that will come from increases in passenger numbers and what from increases in passenger fares? Some commuters have experienced 20 per cent. fare increases. What are the statement's implications for unregulated fares, and for increases in them?
	The Secretary of State said that no seats would be taken out to provide additional capacity. Will she pass that information on to South West Trains, which seems hellbent on removing seats from stock on the lines that pass through my constituency?
	An answer to a question I tabled earlier this month contained the admission that the cost of driving had decreased by 10 per cent. in real terms over the past 30 years while the cost of using buses and the railways had increased by more than 50 per cent. Given the importance of climate change, as highlighted in the Stern report, how much will be diverted from internal flights and roads to rail? What shift of freight from road to rail will there be under the strategy? Is the £200 million new money, and what will it buy us?
	Which of the bottlenecks identified in the Network Rail business plan 2007 are not addressed or funded in this strategy? Thinking of my own constituency, I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could tell us what is to happen to Waterloo and Eurostar. It is extraordinary that we did not have more detail on Crossrail, especially when the opportunity presented itself to confirm the Government's commitment to adequate funding to take the project forward.
	Given that the 2005 Labour manifesto promised us high-speed rail, why are the Government ignoring the Atkins report on high-speed rail that has already shown that north-south capacity around Birmingham will reach capacity by 2014? That presents only a tentative possibility of looking at that line seriously.
	I note that the Secretary of State promises better and safer stations from Wolverhampton to Dartmouth. She might be interested to know, from Wikipedia, that no railway has ever run to Dartmouth. The town does have a railway station, but it is now a restaurant. There is a steam railway that runs Thomas the Tank Engine. I make those remarks simply to try to illustrate that there is so much in this report that is clever phrasing: will the Secretary of State be kind enough to tell us what it will actually deliver?

Ruth Kelly: I am also disappointed by the hon. Lady's contribution. She gave no recognition to the fact that the White Paper will deliver safer, more reliable trains. It targets investment on those lines where overcrowding is worst and will allow passenger demand to grow by 22.5 per cent. over the next seven years, so that 180 million more people can use the train every year—a huge contribution, not only to the environment, but to the economy.
	The hon. Lady asks what is new in the White Paper. I can tell her what is new—1,300 new carriages and the major projects, such as £5.5 billion on Thameslink. The hon. Lady went back to the 10-year plan, and I will deal with that. The 10-year plan was launched before Railtrack spiralled out of control as a result of the botched privatisation, which is, as I am sure all hon. Members would now agree, a credible analysis of the situation. Network Rail has now regained control and, for the first time in recent history, we are entering a period in which we can predict safely both a rising number of passengers using the train and significantly funded investments that are deliverable. Of course the rail regulator will assure himself of that before we commit to, for example, precisely where the 1,300 extra carriages will go. There is also the £550 million investment in Birmingham New Street and Reading stations, the £150 million for medium-sized stations up and down the country, and improvements to track and infrastructure across the railway.
	The hon. Lady asked two questions about the implications for fares. As a result of Railtrack and the botched privatisation of British Rail, the taxpayer subsidy rose significantly towards 50 per cent. last year. It is right that as costs are re-gripped and taken under control by Network Rail the level of taxpayer subsidy should fall towards historic levels. As a result of the strategy that we publish today, we envisage that that will reduce towards 26 per cent. in line with historic norms.
	It is right too to recognise—I hope that the hon. Lady does so—that 80 per cent. of passengers now use regulated fares, which are capped at RPI plus 1 per cent. Some discounted fares are significantly cheaper, even in cash terms, than they were in 1997. Indeed, the average price per kilometre travelled has risen by only 3 per cent. in real terms since 1991.
	The hon. Lady asked about the environment. The biggest single impact that we can have on the environment is by providing more capacity for passengers to use the railways. The White Paper is geared not only towards improving reliability, but to significant and major investment in delivering greater capacity. The industry has committed itself to come up with carbon reduction targets by next year, and for the next output control period we will set—alongside safety, reliability and performance targets—specific carbon targets and commitments.
	The hon. Lady asks about added seats. I have already said, in answer to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers), that 100,000 new seats will be added as a result of the significant investment we are making. She asks about freight. We are confident that rail freight will continue to grow over the next 10 to 15 years and that we can use the productivity element of the transport innovation fund as a potential funding stream to enhance the strategic freight network. We are making available an extra £200 million for the development of the strategic network.
	The hon. Lady asks about the high speed rail link. Such a link would cost £30 billion and would not be delivered for 20 years, but it is right that we examine the case for it and that we continue to explore options and keep it under review. If we had £30 billion—the hon. Lady may have that much money but I do not at present—there are ways of spending it that will better deliver more, and sooner, for current passengers than a high speed rail link could ever do. If the economics or the environmental calculations change, it is right that we consider them in due course. The railway White Paper and the funding statement will deliver an improved railway for today's passengers and accommodate an increase in demand of almost a quarter over the next seven years. That should be welcomed.

Eric Martlew: If my right hon. Friend wants to see the difference between a Labour Government and a Conservative Government running the railways, she should look at the west coast main line. Will the extra carriages announced today mean that each Pendolino train will have an extra two carriages? I am rather disappointed at my right hon. Friend's dismissal of high speed lines. We have a high speed line that works—from the channel to St. Pancras—so there must be a case for a north-south line, because there will be major capacity problems on the west coast main line by 2014.

Ruth Kelly: I hear my hon. Friend's representations on behalf of the west coast main line. I know how important the project is to him, and the modernisation of the west coast main line will of course continue during this funding period. Precisely where the extra carriages will go will become clearer after negotiations with the industry, which will continue over the next few months. I know, too, of my hon. Friend's commitment to the north-south high speed rail link. If we had £30 billion we could have funded the equivalent of the west coast modernisation several times over. The issue for the Government is what the best use of that money is today. In future, the environmental or economic calculations may change so it is right that the Government keep the matter under review, but today is not the right time to make a commitment.

Patrick Cormack: While I wait with bated breath for tomorrow's statement on motherhood and apple pie, will the right hon. Lady tell me what I can tell my constituents who use Wolverhampton station? Precisely how much of the £150 million will be spent on the station? When will it be spent and what will be done with the money? May we have some specifics?

Ruth Kelly: From a sedentary position, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State whispered that we had the motherhood statement last week, so I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman.
	The hon. Gentleman makes the case for Wolverhampton, and I acknowledged in my statement that Wolverhampton should be funded for infrastructure improvements. They are, of course, the responsibility of Network Rail but I understand that Wolverhampton has an extremely strong case.

John McDonnell: The Labour party in Scotland made proposals for operating train passenger services on a not-for-profit basis. Will the Government consider allowing Network Rail to operate passenger services on a not-for-profit basis, particularly where franchises are failing?

Ruth Kelly: When the railway is entering an unprecedented era of growth, it would not be right for the Government to suggest that the answer to any concerns about railways is to restructure them. Network Rail has never advanced a proposition for running not-for-profit railway services, but if at any time it did so, the Government would consider the proposal.

George Young: In her statement the Secretary of State announced increases in the capacity of the railway system, and the House always welcomes such statements. She said that over the next seven years we will see
	"the £5.5 billion transformation of Thameslink".
	Is she aware that I also announced the go-ahead for Thameslink? If she looks at  Hansard for 27 February 1996, she will see that I said:
	"On current plans, Thameslink 2000 services can be expected to start within six years."—[ Official Report, 27 February 1996; Vol. 272, c. 724.]
	Who has been holding it up?

Ruth Kelly: Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman had his own role to play in failing to deliver Thameslink, but today I can say for the first time that the Government have set the money aside to fund the Thameslink programme. The first improvements should come on before the end of the control period that we have set the funds aside for today, and there will be further improvements in due course.

Joan Walley: May I say how much we welcome the improvements in the west coast main line? Labour Members who travel on it regularly know what a real difference it has made. But in looking at the plan ahead, will my right hon. Friend look at the role of local services, because if we have the extra use on the west coast main line, we need to improve local services along the line? It is no use just having an improved Crewe station if we do not have the improved services right the way east-west cross-country. Will she meet the north Staffordshire community railway group, who I met yesterday, to discuss passenger transport, to see how we can develop the investment in local services that are needed in north Staffordshire?

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and the Rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris), has already offered to meet her and a delegation on this issue. It is important that we develop local services, and indeed rural services where there is demand for those services. This is the first White Paper that I know of that has said on the Government's behalf that there will be no closures on local or rural lines. We have also set aside some of the new carriages to meet increasing demand on those lines if that demand occurs, but my hon. Friend will be very happy to meet her to discuss it.

Edward Davey: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the works to convert platforms at Waterloo International for domestic use by December 2008 will now go ahead under these plans? Can she also confirm that her Department will now press ahead urgently with the feasibility studies that are required into all other options at Waterloo and its approach routes, to remove all bottlenecks to the use of longer trains, which is the only way to remove the overcrowding suffered by so many on London suburban routes?

Ruth Kelly: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that Waterloo is identified as one of the railway stations in London that need significant infrastructure to enhance their capacity. He mentions the feasibility options that could enhance that further. I think it is right that we take time to consider those. I am very happy to meet him to discuss them if that would be useful.

Russell Brown: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has raised the issue of regulated, unregulated and discounted tickets, but will she impress on the rail companies the need to use modern technologies such as smartcards and mobile phones for the sale of those tickets?

Ruth Kelly: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I understand that the first franchise that will offer the use of smartcards will be delivered in 2009, and following on from that experience we intend to see smartcards introduced right across the network. They have the potential really to simplify the experience for the passenger in the future.

Jacqui Lait: When will the bottleneck at London Bridge be dealt with?

Ruth Kelly: London Bridge is one of the stations that has also been identified in the output period, so between 2009 and 2014 there should be improvements in that service too.

Martin Linton: I represent the inner-London commuters who get on the trains when the carriages are already full and the seats already taken, so I warmly welcome the 1,300 extra carriages and the 100,000 extra seats. If my right hon. Friend wants to do even more to ease congestion in central London, will she also ensure that Transport for London is funded to proceed with the routes that avoid the centre of London, such as London Overground and the East London line phase 2, which will connect Clapham Junction to the tube system?

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend makes his case very eloquently. Of course, I will consult him and, indeed, other interested parties during the development of those lines.

Eleanor Laing: I welcome much of what the right hon. Lady has told the House this afternoon—in particular, her clear admission that the nationalised railways suffered from chronic under-investment in trains and infrastructure. From that, the House can only infer that she now admits that privatisation was absolutely necessary and that any of the improvements that have occurred in the past 10 years could never have happened without the investment that privatisation brought. Will she now admit that the political interference of the past 10 years, particularly that brought about during the reign of the former Deputy Prime Minister, has held back the progress that could have been made but has not been made in the past 10 years?

Ruth Kelly: I was preparing myself to congratulate the hon. Lady on her wisdom, but I do not think that her comments will have much resonance with the public if she says that the success of the railway was somehow to do with privatisation, rather than recognising the fact that Railtrack lost control of costs altogether and that it was ultimately the taxpayer who ended up footing the bill of an additional £1.25 billion a year before we had to introduce Network Rail to regain control of costs and to start to make improvements in our railway system.

Shona McIsaac: I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to rural lines, which will certainly please the residents of Barton-upon-Humber in my constituency. With all due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), I will fight her tooth and nail to ensure that Cleethorpes gets a fair share of the £150 million for station refurbishment. However, are there any plans to increase the capacity on the trans-Pennine route, which services Cleethorpes?

Ruth Kelly: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. I hope that she will have noted that Cleethorpes is one of the stations that is likely to benefit from infrastructure improvements, and I am sure that she will continue to press her case over the coming months. It is right that, over the next few months, the Government take time to consider where the investment for that additional capacity is best directed—where the extra carriages will go. I hear what she says about the trans-Pennine express. We will consult the rail regulator, Network Rail and the train operating companies to decide where those carriages are best targeted and come back to the House with a plan by January.

Adam Price: I welcome the extra investment in Cardiff, Reading and Birmingham New Street, which will be very good news for passengers in many parts of my country. However, is there any intention in the White Paper to devolve further powers over the railways to the Welsh Government? In the last White Paper, that happened with Scotland and included responsibility for London to Glasgow and Edinburgh services operating in Scotland. That has not happened in Wales, with the result that 60 per cent. of inter-city services in south Wales, for example, are entirely unaccountable to the Welsh Assembly Government. Will she agree to hold an urgent meeting with the new Transport Minister in the Welsh Assembly Government, who, as luck would have it, is the leader of my party?

Ruth Kelly: I am certainly glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the investment in Cardiff station, which will receive £20 million to improve its infrastructure, thus also relieving the bottleneck at Reading station, where very significant investment will transform Reading station's potential to operate as an interchange and improve the reliability of all the train services in Wales and elsewhere that use Reading. I am afraid that I cannot promise him that I will somehow reopen the devolution settlement today, but I hope that he rests assured that we take the interests of his constituents seriously.

Martin Salter: At least one of the two Reading MPs is here to applaud the Secretary of State for having the wisdom and foresight to announce the long-awaited upgrade of Reading station. It will improve platform capacity, deliver service improvements and help to tackle the chronic overcrowding that is making commuting such a misery on the First Great Western main line, but is she aware that it will also remove the dreadful Cow lane bottlenecks, which are a blockage in west Reading for both motorists and bus passengers? The statement is a win-win for Reading and a win-win for Labour.

Ruth Kelly: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and pay tribute to him. Over the past few months—indeed longer than that: over the past five years—he has championed the cause of his constituents and made a strong case on behalf of all commuters who use Reading station or whose train line depends on Reading station. The £425 million that the Government are committing today will transform the prospects of people using Reading station and will improve the frequency and reliability of trains into London.

Patrick McLoughlin: Has the Secretary of State had a chance to visit Derby station? If she has, she will have seen that the platforms look like a setting from world war two. When will Derby station be refurbished?

Ruth Kelly: I have had the opportunity to visit Derby station and the right hon. Gentleman makes his case with passion. Today's White Paper commits the Government to £150 million for 150 medium-sized stations. There is also other funding available for stations that do not qualify as the top 150 priorities. It is for Network Rail, together with the train operating companies, to decide what the priorities are and I am sure that he will continue to make his case to them.

Kelvin Hopkins: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to Thameslink, which serves my constituency and is the line on which I have commuted for 38 years—perhaps I should declare an interest. The £5.5 billion for Thameslink contrasts rather markedly with the £200 million committed to rail freight. Will she give further thought to more substantial investment in rail freight, particularly on strategic routes? That would not just take traffic off our road, but might take freight traffic off fast main line passenger routes and free them up for faster and more frequent passenger trains.

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw the attention of the House to the importance of freight and the need to deliver a strategic freight network that will allow the use of freight rail services to increase over the next seven years. The Government's £200 million will really help that process. There are those who argue that we should have dedicated freight lines—I think that he is one of them. The issue for the Government is how to make the best value-for-money investments while delivering the objectives. I understand that not only do strategic dedicated freight lines cost a significant amount of money, they do not maximise the potential to relieve congestion on the busiest routes, because they do not alter the peak hours commuter congestion periods on passenger lines. We have to target our money appropriately to make the best use of it, but of course we keep the issues under review.

Richard Shepherd: Seven years ago, in the 10-year plan, the Government said that they would bring forward schemes to ease bottlenecks, particularly in the west midlands. Will the right hon. Lady look carefully at the rail service and facilities improvement plan generated by my borough of Walsall, which highlights the Stourbridge-Walsall-Lichfield line? It connects Walsall with Stourbridge and thence the south and south-west, and with Brownhills and Lichfield for connections to Yorkshire and the north-east. The former Strategic Rail Authority in its land use planning guide cited the line as a potential capacity provider to ease congestion across the west midlands rail network. Anything that the Secretary of State can do to bring forward the revival of the Brownhills-to-Lichfield line, and so on, would be mightily welcome.

Ruth Kelly: I will of course look at any proposal that an hon. Member puts before me, but I urge the hon. Gentleman to think about the potential costs of any improvements that he may suggest, because, ultimately, they have to be funded either by the taxpayer or by the fare payer—or we will be unable to deliver the investment. I have yet to hear a plausible exposition of an Opposition policy that would enable greater investment in capacity.

Fiona Mactaggart: I warmly welcome the proposal to invest £425 million in Reading station, but will my right hon. Friend please make sure that the beneficiaries of that investment are not just passengers who live to the west of Reading, but those on the inner commuter lines of First Great Western? In my constituency, for example, three years ago there were 10 fast trains to Paddington during the morning peak; now there are four.

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend makes her case well. I can assure her that the very significant investment at Reading station will have implications for her constituents, and I expect the reliability of trains on those routes to improve as a result of it.

Stephen Williams: I, too, welcome the investment in Reading station. It will certainly improve services to the west as, absurdly, the bottleneck means that the fast train to Bristol is frequent held up at Reading, even though it is not even meant to stop there. However, will the Secretary of State consider bringing forward investment in and around Bristol Temple Meads station? Resignalisation of the lines in the area will enable the underused branch network around the city, including the Severn Beech line, to be expanded, and the line to Portishead to be reopened. That would reduce significantly the number of cars coming into Bristol city centre, and the carbon emissions that they cause.

Ruth Kelly: The Government, in conjunction with Network Rail and the train operating companies, always take seriously questions to do with whether a rail line should be reopened, whether extra carriages should be added to a particular service or whether a station needs to be enhanced to deliver improvements. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman has cleared his plea for more money with his Front Bench, as I do not yet understand how the Liberal Democrat sums add up.

Gavin Strang: Whether it is for reasons of economic efficiency, global warming or simple traveller comfort, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right to give priority to investment in the railways over the next seven years and beyond. I do not want to reopen the debate about the devolution settlement, but she has considerable influence in Scotland and I put it to her that the provision of a modern rail connection into Glasgow and Edinburgh airports has to be a priority. Will she use her good offices to encourage the Scottish Executive, the railway interests and BAA, the airports' owner, to make that investment?

Ruth Kelly: I am afraid that I cannot give my right hon. Friend that assurance. He knows that those issues are for the Scottish Executive and not Westminster politicians—

Gavin Strang: What about the airports? Aviation is a Westminster responsibility.

Ruth Kelly: Where airlines have a particular responsibility, it is clear that there are commercial decisions that also need to be made.

Edward Vaizey: Like other hon. Members, I have been lobbying on my constituents' behalf in respect of the First Great Western main line, so the news about the improvements at Reading is very welcome. Will the Secretary of State say when they will be completed, and update us on other important improvements, such as increasing capacity at Oxford and improving access to Paddington? Finally, what is the prospect of getting a station at Grove?

Ruth Kelly: It is remarkable how representations from Opposition Back Benchers differ so profoundly from what Front Bench say. Opposition Back Benchers have welcomed what is in today's White Paper, and even added to the proposals by asking for more investment and capacity improvements, but I have yet to hear those on the Front Bench make a credible proposition about how they would fund the improvements. We have set aside more than £425 million for Reading station in the control period from 2009 to 2014. That will deliver significant improvements for the hon. Gentleman's constituents.

Diane Abbott: The proposals in the White Paper will be widely welcomed, but is my right hon. Friend aware that, for Londoners, the test of the rail strategy will be what happens with Crossrail, which has been promised for so long? We know that the Government are committed to Crossrail and that the necessary legislation is going through, but the project's credibility among Londoners will depend on their being able to see concrete funding plans. When Crossrail is in place, perhaps we can move on to Crossrail 2, with the underground being taken all the way from Hackney's glittering spires to downtown Chelsea.

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend is right that Crossrail is incredibly important to relieving overcrowding at some of London's busiest stations and on the tube, and that it could make a real strategic contribution to passenger movements across London. The Crossrail Bill is going through the process of being considered by the House, but in the meantime it is right that the Government work with the private sector to try and make sure that the project is affordable and properly financed.

Christine Russell: The very welcome refurbishment of Chester station has commenced, and in the past 12 months there has been a 30 per cent. increase in the number of passengers using the station. However, that has highlighted the real need for additional car parking there. Many of my constituents drive to Crewe or Runcorn to catch the train, so will my right hon. Friend look at trying to speed up the provision of extra car parking?

Ruth Kelly: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. Chester will benefit significantly from the proposals that I have set before the House. She mentioned car parking, an issue that is being raised with increasing regularity across the country as demand for rail services increases. On the whole, such issues are dealt with by Network Rail in conjunction with the relevant local authority. I am sure that she is making her representations to those bodies directly, but of course I am happy to pass them on.

Peter Luff: Is the Secretary of State aware that for the first time in many years, my constituents in Worcestershire can plan their journeys to London and Oxford with complete confidence, because the railway line is closed, thanks to the floods? Will she use this respite period to put pressure on First Great Western to improve its abysmal level of service, and on Network Rail to improve its infrastructure and maintenance work on the line, and to bring forward as quickly as possible the business case for the redoubling of the line between Worcester and Oxford?

Ruth Kelly: I assure the hon. Gentleman that as recently as last Thursday, First Great Western met my hon. Friend the Rail Minister. First Great Western has an improvement strategy in place. I hope to see it commit to delivering on its franchise agreement, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and other Members of the House would welcome that.

Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome the statement and the reiteration of support for the railway network. Will the Secretary of State say something about reopening the many closed railway lines in England, and the possibility of reopening enough routes to allow an east-west line to be formed? That has long been campaigned for, would not be expensive to introduce, and would mean a huge improvement to passenger and freight networks. Will she give us some hope on the question of when that might happen?

Ruth Kelly: I have to tell my hon. Friend that those are predominantly issues for Network Rail. It has the necessary planning powers in place to put aside disused rail lines for future growth purposes, if it thinks that that is the right thing to do. It considers proposals on a case-by-case basis, and I am sure that it will have heard my hon. Friend's representations.

Anne Main: I notice that the statement said that there is to be a welcome focus on passengers, and a greater involvement with future franchises. Given the unhappiness with the First Capital Connect franchise, will there be any revision or renegotiation of franchises about which people are deeply unhappy?

Ruth Kelly: I can tell the hon. Lady that the franchises currently in operation are already delivering benefits for passengers. We hope to improve on that in the coming seven years as we accommodate a massive increase in demand—180 million more people are to travel by rail every year. Of course, as we go forward, we want to make sure that passenger concerns are right at the heart of the franchising process. That is why I intend to make sure that Passenger Focus has more input in specifying the franchises in future.

Brian H Donohoe: Will my right hon. Friend go for a truly integrated transport system, and do more about car parking facilities in all stations? I have travelled the length and breadth of the country, and no station that I visit has the necessary car parking facilities. Will part of the £100 million, or £150 million, which has been designated for 150 stations go on car parking?

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that local authorities ought to have integrated transport plans that take into account not only bus usage, but local train stations, how people access those stations, how links are made, and whether people can drive to the station, leave their cars and use the train. However, it is right that those issues be determined locally, rather than in Whitehall. I am sure that he will want to take up the issues that he raised with his local authority and Network Rail.

Christopher Fraser: The Secretary of State referred to the non-closure of rural lines. Will she give a guarantee of investment in places such as Norfolk, where efficient rural rail links are an absolute necessity?

Ruth Kelly: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. There will be no rural line closures in the next seven years. Beyond that, of course, there needs to be flexibility in place, so that we can make sure that rural lines can respond to passenger demand. We are also providing new rolling stock to increase capacity on rural lines, where that is needed.

Richard Burden: I add my welcome for my right hon. Friend's announcement of a £600 million investment to tackle bottlenecks at Birmingham New Street and Reading stations, but may I press her a little more on the Birmingham New Street aspect of the announcement? Will she confirm that the investment is only the first tranche of money, and that it is simply the rail component of a much bigger project that needs to be funded if, at New Street, we are to achieve the benefits that are so vital for Birmingham and the west midlands? How will the project be taken forward, and what will the responsibilities be of different Departments and Government agencies in taking it forward?

Ruth Kelly: I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done in championing the cause of Birmingham New Street. I know that he and his colleagues have made their case strongly with the Department and others involved in the process. I can confirm that £128 million will be delivered by the Department for Transport for the railway improvements at Birmingham New Street, which are desperately needed. I also know that Birmingham city council has put forward plans for a much more ambitious scheme that would secure regeneration benefits for the area as well. The £128 million that we are pledging today is without prejudice to that larger scheme going ahead. In a way, the message for my hon. Friend's constituency is that the first hurdle is cleared. We will assess any future scheme on its merits if a value-for-money case can be made.

Richard Younger-Ross: Can the Minister confirm whether any money for the 154 railway stations is to go to Devon stations, or whether the reference to Dartmouth is a just a misleading mistake? Will there be an increase in capacity between Exeter and Waterloo? That will be vital, particularly during the construction phase of Crossrail.

Ruth Kelly: There will be an increase in capacity at Waterloo station, which I think will serve Exeter too. Some £150 million has been set aside for middle-sized stations. Clearly, there will be a process of iteration with Network Rail and other interested parties about where that money is best targeted. Those are decisions rightly taken by the industry, rather than set from Whitehall. I hear the case that the hon. Gentleman has made, and I will happily forward it to those concerned.

Flooding

Hilary Benn: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a brief further statement to update the House on the serious flooding that is affecting central and southern England. I apologise to those on the Opposition Front Benches for the short time that they have had the statement in advance, but as I am sure Members will appreciate, the situation is changing rather fast.
	Cobra met yesterday evening and again first thing this morning. The most serious issue that we have been facing is the potential flooding of the Walham switching station, which would result in power cuts to hundreds of thousands of people and the potential further loss of pumped water supplies. I am pleased to tell the House that this has so far been avoided, thanks to the heroic efforts of the Environment Agency, armed forces, fire service and others who built the temporary defence around the site on Sunday and who have been working to pump water out since.
	Although the Environment Agency advises that the River Severn has now peaked, the weather outlook remains unsettled. This includes the possibility of further heavy rain in the flood-affected areas in the days ahead. Those on the site will continue to do all that can be done to protect Walham, and we have been making contingency arrangements for continuity of essential services and supplies, should the need arise.
	I am also able to report that the Castlemeads electricity substation has now been brought back into operation, so restoring power to more than 48,000 properties in Gloucestershire. There remain 223 properties in Tewkesbury without power, and it is hoped to have them reconnected later this afternoon. There are also 134 properties in Gloucester and three in Cheltenham which are without power, I am advised.
	However, this emergency is still not over and the River Thames continues to cause concern. There was further flooding in Abingdon last night, but no additional significant flooding in the rest of Oxfordshire is now expected. There will, however, be peak flows during the next 24 to 36 hours further down the river, and flooding in Henley, Reading and other riverside properties to Marlow and Windsor may be unavoidable. The Environment Agency is continuing to make efforts to reduce potential flood damage and an evacuation centre is being prepared in Reading. The Jubilee river has protected several hundred properties in Maidenhead.
	A total of 140,000 properties remain without mains water following the flooding of the Mythe water treatment works at Tewkesbury. Distribution of water is now the priority. Since yesterday, Severn Trent has deployed about 500 bowsers, and the company says that that will rise to 900 by tomorrow morning. Eighty tankers are available to keep those bowsers and static tanks topped up, and a further 20 tankers are being organised under mutual aid agreements. Three million litres of bottled water a day are being made available, and the Army is helping with distribution. Priority is being given to hospitals and vulnerable groups. Advice is being issued to householders on how to cope with the loss of mains water supply. Severn Trent does not expect full water supply to be restored for some days. However, it hopes to gain access to the Mythe works today to assess the situation and to make a start on putting a flood barrier around the works to enable water to be pumped out. That should allow work to start on restoring the plant as soon as possible.
	I am only too aware, as are all Members of the House, of the very considerable human distress that many people are experiencing, with homes and businesses ruined. I want to pay tribute to the extraordinary community effort as people are helping their neighbours. The Minister for Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (John Healey), visited Gloucester and Tewkesbury today, and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) was in Reading this morning.
	I informed the House yesterday that the revised Bellwin rules will assist local authorities in the areas affected to cover the costs of dealing with the flooding and its immediate aftermath. I can today tell the House that the Government will supplement the existing £14 million flood recovery grant fund with up to a further £10 million, which will be made available to affected local authorities on the same basis.
	Finally, I will be holding a briefing meeting for Members of Parliament of constituencies affected in the Moses Room at 5.30 pm today. Officials from the Environment Agency, civil contingencies unit and other departments will be there to provide further details of what is being done, to answer questions, and to pick up particular issues that I know Members will wish to raise. I hope that this will be helpful.

Peter Ainsworth: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and welcome the increase in the flood recovery grant fund—although in the greater scheme of things, it does not look like it will go very far.
	The whole House will be very relieved to hear about the better situation at Walham, and I know that the Secretary of State will wish to keep us informed as matters progress on that front. I thank him for the way in which he has not only kept the House informed of events so far but gone out of his way to keep in touch with hon. Members whose constituencies have been badly affected by these events.
	Once again, our first thoughts are with the thousands of people whose lives remain on hold as a result of these terrible floods, and with the emergency services and local authorities who are continuing the struggle to contain the problem and to mitigate its impact on local communities. I am pleased to report to the Secretary of State that experience and feedback from our own Conservative-controlled local authorities is that the relationship with the Government and their agencies on the ground, in dealing with the immediate crisis, is working pretty well. I also pay tribute to the local media in the affected areas, particularly local radio stations, which have become a vital source of information and advice.
	As the Secretary of State said, the immediate crisis is by no means over, as the surge in the Thames heads eastwards into Berkshire, threatening further destruction, and many thousands of people in Gloucestershire remain without access to fresh mains drinking water. My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) advises me that there have been problems with the delivery of bowsers to people without mains water. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that that situation is now properly managed? My hon. Friend also tells me that food supplies in the town are running low, as it remains cut off from the surrounding road and rail network. Are there emergency plans in place to deal with food shortages if they start occurring?
	It is becoming increasingly clear, I am afraid, that last year's £14 million cut to the Environment Agency's maintenance budget, together with a general failure to maintain watercourses, may have played a part in increasing the risk of flooding in the latest floods and in the floods in the north last month. Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that that issue will be addressed by the independent inquiry? These events have posed serious questions about the vulnerability of our public infrastructure. Will he ensure that the inquiry also looks at the siting and resilience of key water and electricity installations? One lesson is already clear: it is folly to build water and power plants in places where they can be taken out by floods.
	The devastating impact on farmland, and the knock-on consequences for food prices, is becoming clear. I strongly endorse the suggestion made yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) that the floods make it all the more essential to speed up payments from the Rural Payments Agency. Given the increased risk of extreme weather events, it is essential that our systems and structures are fit for purpose to meet the challenge. Will the Secretary of State ensure that in the next review of water prices, Ofwat takes proper account of the need for water companies to upgrade the physical capacity of their networks? Of course nobody wants to pay higher bills, but recent events have dramatically illustrated the huge costs to the wider community of underfunding investment in water infrastructure.
	On costs, has the Secretary of State applied yet to the European Union solidarity fund for assistance? Will he undertake an urgent assessment of the likely total cost to public funds of repairing or replacing damaged infrastructure, such as bridges, roads, and railway assets, and buildings, such as schools and hospitals? Will he also resolve the uncertainty as to how that work is going to be paid for? Will he clarify the maximum amount that an individual council can apply for under the Bellwin scheme?
	As I said yesterday, we welcome the announcement of an independent lessons-learned review, rather than the originally planned review that was to be conducted by the Cabinet Office. However, is the Secretary of State aware that a review of exactly the same name was carried out after the floods in 2000, and that it reported in March 2001? In the light of today's crisis, is it not fair to ask whether lessons from that review were actually learned? In fact, will the Secretary of State make an early statement on how many of the various recommendations from previous lessons-learned inquiries have been implemented? So far, we have identified at least 25 different reports published since 2000 by public authorities, Departments and Select Committees, all of which have made recommendations and issued warnings about our country's readiness for extreme floods.
	Once the floods are finally over, and the media interest has moved on, local communities will be left with the lonely and miserable task of clearing up, and people will be left trying to piece together a semblance of normal life. It is likely that many will effectively remain homeless for months. Will the Secretary of State consider supporting an initiative to put those who are now in emergency accommodation in touch with others who are generously offering to house them? Above all, local councils and people with flooded homes are worried that, with the holiday season approaching, they will be left to cope with the aftermath on their own and with inadequate resources. What measures is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that there is no let-up in support for the flood-stricken areas in the coming months?

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome of the additional funding, which is of course in addition to finance that will be made available under the Bellwin scheme. There is no maximum to the Bellwin scheme; once a local authority goes above the threshold, 100 per cent. of the costs of dealing with the immediate aftermath is made available for up to six months. I am also pleased to hear from him that in his experience, and that of other hon. and right hon. Members, the emergency co-ordination arrangements have worked pretty well on the ground. That reflects my experience, as I told the House yesterday, and it demonstrates the degree of planning that has gone into ensuring that those services work effectively when such events occur.
	On the question of water bowsers, I spoke to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) about water distribution—last night, I think; a lot has been happening. We are keeping a close eye on the issue because I know from talking to the Gold Commander late yesterday evening that everyone on the ground is anxious that the promised number of bowsers materialise in the right places. That is the responsibility of the Severn Trent water company. We are continuing to follow that up, which is why the armed forces are helping with the distribution of water. I have already raised the question of food supplies in relation to Tewkesbury because I got a message earlier today from the hon. Gentleman, and we will have an opportunity shortly to follow that matter up with those responsible for the operations, in the briefing to which I have already alluded.
	The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) is absolutely right on the matter of public infrastructure, and we discussed that yesterday. Of course, one of the lessons is to look at appropriate siting and protection of infrastructure—for obvious reasons. Water treatment plants, such as Mythe, which was already lifted above the side of the river, have to be located next to rivers because that is where they draw their water from. It is evident that big bits of infrastructure and, in some cases, small pumps, might be taken out, but cannot therefore do their job. Those lessons need to be learned.
	On farming and the impact of the flooding on many farmers, we are in contact with the National Farmers Union. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, which the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) made yesterday about the Rural Payments Agency. We are keen to try to speed up the way in which the RPA works, but, as I said yesterday, the most important thing for me is to keep the promises that we have made and look to improve performance in the light of what has happened.
	We need to consider longer-term costs. To apply to the EU solidarity fund, an assessment has to be made of the total costs of dealing with the emergency. They are not all evident yet.
	On infrastructure, it will not yet be possible to know whether some bridges have been so badly damaged that they need extensive repairs or replacement. As I said yesterday, those decisions will have to be made in consultation with the relevant Department.
	The hon. Member for East Surrey is right that there have been several reports and recommendations. Let me say a word about "Making space for water". We set up that programme in 2004 precisely because the Government realised that the complex co-ordination of the response to surface-water flooding and river flooding was a problem. The Government response was made in 2005. The coastal overview has already been announced and is going ahead. We aim to have policy decisions on the inland overview in place by 2009, but we wrote to all the stakeholders—the Environment Agency, water companies, local authorities, drainage boards, flood forums, the Association of British Insurers; all the bodies that have an interest in dealing with flooding and surface-water drainage—to say that we were considering giving the Environment Agency a strategic overview and asking for their views. Fifteen urban drainage pilots are already starting and the next step is to consider risk mapping. As I said yesterday, the interim results of the review will help inform that.
	On the hon. Gentleman's last point about housing, I am sure that local councils have heard his comments—and what is doubtless being said in local areas—about people's willingness to provide accommodation to those who have been displaced. I will ensure that that is raised.

Laurence Robertson: I apologise for having to leave slightly early today.
	I thank the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister for their tremendous efforts and for personally telephoning me to keep me in touch and hear my concerns. I also pay tribute to the people who saved Walham power station, which was crucial.
	My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) mentioned the problems with bowsers. We do not have enough and I should like to mention the areas that are deprived of water. They are: Deerhurst, Apperley, Sandhurst, Hucclecote, Twyning, Dumbleton, Southam, Toddington, Oxenton, Great Witcombe, Brockworth and Snowshill—and, indeed, Northway, despite what the website says. That is a long list of villages in my area that do not have enough water. I am informed that there are large tankers at Ashchurch barracks, which could be used if a direction were given to the Army at the barracks. I understand that it is waiting for a decision. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State looked into that urgently.
	I also hear reports that two premature babies were airlifted out of the area but died on the way to hospital as a result of the floods. I understand that another person is missing. Those are the tragic circumstances that we face in Tewkesbury. I therefore ask the Secretary of State to consider whether the recess could be delayed. I know that that will not be popular, but, given the circumstances, I ask the Prime Minister to consider whether a delay to the recess would be in order, or at the very least, the same access to Ministers as they have been good enough to make available so far.

Hilary Benn: On the bowsers, I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman can attend the briefing at 5.30 pm. If he cannot, will he please give me a list of all the locations so that I can take it with me to the meeting and relay it so that action can be taken?
	Secondly, the whole House will very much regret what happened on Saturday morning when a pregnant woman in Tewkesbury requested medical assistance. When it became clear that the paramedics would not be able to reach her because of the floods, RAF search and rescue was called and a helicopter carrying an experienced paramedic was immediately diverted to the scene. The mother and the unborn babies were taken to Cheltenham general hospital, but sadly the babies did not survive.
	On the hon. Gentleman's final point, I give him an absolute guarantee that Ministers will remain accessible even though the House has risen. I hope that the contact and the relationship that has been established—it is a practical relationship, to try to deal with the practical circumstances that all hon. Members representing constituencies affected are trying to deal with—will continue whether the House is sitting or not.

Christopher Huhne: Those of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches would like to join others both in expressing sympathy for those affected and in praising the emergency services. The staff who saved the operation of the Walham switching station are due for particular congratulation. It is also good news that an assessment of the Mythe works is under way. I understand the difficulties in doing this, but will the Secretary of State give an indication of the likely timescale for bringing Mythe back into operation, however tentative that assessment might be? Coming hot foot from his constituency, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) has just informed me that flooding seems to have started in Oxford. I wonder whether the Secretary of State was aware of that and whether he can say anything about the potential in that area, because he was clearly not anticipating any significant extra flood damage further down in Oxfordshire.
	What arrangements will the Government now make to protect critical infrastructure, such as the national grid switching stations and water treatment plants in other areas, should we unfortunately face similarly enormous inundations over the rest of the summer? How many sites throughout the country are at risk of facing the same sort of problems as those that the Walham switching station and Mythe water treatment works have faced? Can he make a tentative first assessment? How many pumping stations are at risk of encountering the same kind of flooding and inoperability that might have occurred during recent events, and which certainly did occur in Hull? As the emergency enters its fifth day, can he assure us that the emergency services are receiving proper back-up from outside the counties affected, so that their no doubt exhausted staff can be given proper breaks and time for recuperation?
	Yesterday the Secretary of State said in reply to me:
	"On the strategic overview...the sensible course of action is to reflect on that in light of the review that will be undertaken".—[ Official Report, 23 July 2007; Vol. 463, c. 569.]
	Do I understand from his answer to the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) that preparations and the continuation of that policy will in fact continue, as he seemed to imply today? After all, the delays seem unjustified, given the 2004 consultation exercise to which the Secretary of State referred, "Making space for water". Is the Secretary of State aware that the Government of which he was a part at that time stated that the
	"Extension of EA strategic role to other forms of flooding and coastal erosion—legislative and organisational considerations"
	would be complete by the end of 2006? That was in the timeline of the Government's response, in their March 2005 statement. DEFRA's report of March 2006 states:
	"The existing legislation that governs urban drainage has resulted (unintentionally) in an over complex system with diverse responsible bodies".
	Does he accept that the policy came about because of that and because
	"responsibilities are unclear and at times conflicting"?
	What happened to the Government's efforts to deal with the problem? Why did they fail to deliver? Was it because of the wholesale change in ministerial staff, which has meant that there has been no follow-through? Does the Secretary of State accept that moving every Minister—or, indeed, sacking Ministers—is no way to run a Department, as there is then no political or institutional memory from March 2005? What is the point of participation in a consultation exercise or a review if it leads to precisely nothing? What arrangements has the Secretary of State now put in place to ensure that when his Department says that it is going to do something, it actually does it?
	Yesterday, the Secretary of State repeated his mantra that there had been no cut in the capital budget. However, there was a cut in the overall flood defence budget. Will he confirm that those cuts—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could now bring his remarks to a conclusion. We really are in difficult circumstances with time today.

Christopher Huhne: Will the Secretary of State confirm that those cuts worsened the situation found by the National Audit Office when it reported that the Environment Agency had failed to meet its target of maintaining 63 per cent. of England's flood defences in target condition?

Hilary Benn: On Mythe, Severn Trent Water says that a full restoration of services could take between seven and 14 days. It is difficult to say for sure, because that will depend on what it finds when the water is pumped out and it discovers how much damage has been done to the equipment. There has indeed been flooding in Oxford. As I said earlier, we are not anticipating further extensive flooding, but that really depends on exactly how the flow of water comes down the system.
	I can tell the hon. Gentleman that an assessment of other critical infrastructure—down the course of the Thames, in particular—has been carried out, because Cobra asked about that. We have been advised that there is nothing that needs to be worried about, given the pulse of water that we have currently. There is a longer-term issue about infrastructure in general, to which I have already alluded. With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, however, it is not possible for me to answer his related question on whether I could identify any other infrastructure that might be at risk from further flooding and extreme weather in the next few weeks and months. If he will kindly tell me where it is going to rain, I might be able to answer the question. I can confirm that the emergency services are receiving mutual aid from other services, which has allowed staff who are very tired—the hon. Gentleman was right about that—to have a rest.
	On the "Making space for water" strategy, I emphatically reject the charge that we have let it lie. I have already said—and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not appear to be listening—that we have already made arrangements to put the coastal overview in place. We have been dealing with this since 2004, and we recognise that it is a problem. Building on what I said yesterday, I said today that we were getting on with it—the consultation has taken place—and that we will also draw on the lessons to be learned from the review that is now being undertaken.
	If the hon. Gentleman is able to draw to my attention any flooding that has taken place because the flood defences failed at the level that they were meant to protect, I will undertake to go away and look into that. However, many of the flood defences were overtopped. The National Audit Office acknowledged the progress that the Environment Agency had made in trying to improve the maintenance of flood defences, and that is something that the agency will continue to work on.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. While recognising Members' concerns about what is happening in their constituencies, may I please ask them to limit themselves to one supplementary question? I hope that that will enable us to accommodate a greater number of contributions.

David Drew: I thank my right hon. Friend and all his ministerial colleagues for this statement and for treating this matter so seriously. I also pay tribute to all those who have performed so well in such trying circumstances over recent days. Will he consider the request from Gloucestershire county council for funding up front to meet the huge costs that are already being incurred? Will he also urgently look into the situation at Severn Trent? There is certainly misinformation about who is to have their mains water supply turned off, which is causing problems. It is also completely unacceptable to say that it will take up to 14 days to get people back on to mains water when there are other water suppliers in the area. Wessex Water and Bristol Water supply customers in my constituency, and I am sure that in this day and age it is possible, in an emergency, to tap into that water supply and get households, farms and businesses back on to some form of mains supply. It is catastrophic that people should be without water for 14 days.

Hilary Benn: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who will be allocating the funding announced today according to need, will seek to do so as quickly as possible. Secondly, if there is any confusion about who has lost water supply, I will take the matter further if my hon. Friend provides the details. Thirdly, I share my hon. Friend's concern that Mythe should be brought back on line as quickly as possible—a point that I have already made to the Severn Trent company. I have also already said to the chief executive that if he needs any further assistance to make that happen, we will give it.

Adam Afriyie: My constituency is located further downstream and, unusually, the peak flows are expected in 48 to 72 hours in areas such as Datchet, Horton, Wraysbury and Old Windsor. The Jubilee river has protected Maidenhead, but channelled the water further down. Given that the Environment Agency has said that it needs £1 billion to deal with flood defences in the UK, and that it does not quite have that budget, I seek the Secretary of State's assurance that he will re-examine the vital lower Thames protection scheme.

Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Environment Agency has a process through which the priority of schemes is determined, and that the formula is currently under review. The Jubilee river has done its work, but I acknowledge that it protects one part of the area rather than elsewhere. That shows how interrelated the movement of water is and that protecting one area can have a knock-on consequence further down the line. On the question of funding, the £1 billion a year was a sum that resulted from a foresight study looking ahead over the rest of the century. If my memory serves me correctly, I think that the case was that we should be working towards the £1 billion a year by 2024. The House will be aware that we will already have got to £800 million by 2010-11—13 years earlier.

Elliot Morley: I thank my right hon. Friend for keeping the House so well informed, and also for the money made available to north Lincolnshire, which has been used very wisely by North Lincolnshire council to help flood victims. Does he agree that it is not the case that reports are not being acted on? Going back to 1998, the Bye report led to improved contingency arrangements, and "Making space for water" brought about changes in planning and institutional change, and strengthened the role of the Environment Agency. There have been huge improvements over those years. Although the Government are involved through the public sector, it is important to recognise that there are private sector players, particularly in respect of infrastructure. I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about the inquiry and the need to look further into co-ordination and adaptation of the central infrastructure in flood risk areas.

Hilary Benn: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for that contribution, particularly as over recent years he played such an important part in helping to implement the steps that he has mentioned. It is precisely because of the complex interrelationship, including with the private sector, that we are taking this work forward. Everyone has to play their part in dealing with the problem.

Edward Vaizey: May I echo the comments about the importance of local media, particularly BBC Radio Oxford? Given that I spent Sunday afternoon filling sandbags in East Challow for use in Abingdon, will the Secretary of State look urgently into ensuring that sand and sandbags are in place in the towns most likely to be flooded in future?

Hilary Benn: I happily give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has already encountered that issue on his visits to affected areas, and we will certainly look further into it. It is one important lesson that can be learned. I echo what the hon. Gentleman said about local radio, which is often the best-informed source of advice and information about what is going on and what people should do.

Paddy Tipping: In Nottinghamshire, much of the flooding was caused by localised torrential rainfall, which simply overran the surface water systems. The Secretary of State has already pointed out the diffuse responsibilities involved. May I press him to take early decisions about a lead agency and, in the review, to take account of new solutions such as sustainable urban drainage systems—SUDS—and the factors that hinder their implementation?

Hilary Benn: I am very happy to give my hon. Friend assurances on both those points. Clearly, it is important that we should make progress as quickly as possible and that we should look at how, practically, those responsible are going to improve surface water drainage, given the experience that we have had.

Patrick Cormack: Will the Secretary of State, whose conduct has been exemplary and who talked movingly about the human tragedy, discuss with the Chancellor the possibility of the Government launching a fund by putting £10 million down to help private individuals? Others could then add to that. It might be a good idea if those in the House had the opportunity to contribute.

Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about what further assistance can be given to individuals. As the House may be aware, the Red Cross has issued an appeal today, which covers all the victims of the flooding—victims both of the recent events and of what happened in Yorkshire and Humberside and elsewhere. I am sure that the public will want to contribute generously to that. There is also the funding that the Government have made available previously, what I have announced today, and the funding available under the Bellwin rules.

Clive Betts: Although I appreciate that my right hon. Friend's immediate thoughts are with the crisis in the south and in the midlands, does he accept that in the longer term he and his colleagues should look into trying to stop potential lasting damage to local economies? A welcome help fund for small businesses has been set up by Yorkshire Forward, but the chief executive of the chamber of commerce has already said that it has identified quite a lot of small firms that, although insured, are often not insured to replace damaged equipment with brand-new equipment, and are certainly not insured for loss of business. There is a risk to hundreds or even thousands of jobs in the Sheffield area. That could also damage the complicated supply chain in the engineering industry. I wonder whether the Government could eventually give some thought and attention to what they can do to help.

Hilary Benn: I know that my hon. Friend is meeting the Minister for Local Government to discuss that very issue tomorrow. He draws attention to one of the consequences of the flooding that has hit Sheffield particularly badly, including its industrial base. We will try to draw on those lessons and to talk to the insurance industry about the points that he has raised.

Evan Harris: When I left Oxford at 3 o'clock, the water was rising on the Botley road, in the Osney island area, and on roads off the Botley road, which the Minister for the Environment visited on Sunday; we were grateful for that visit. I hope that the Secretary of State is right, and that there will not be additional significant flooding. It is not clear how many properties will be affected. However, those properties have been flooded in 2000, 2003 and again this year. There are no longer floods every 40 years or every 20 years; instead there have been three floods in seven years. Can he see his way to giving an assurance that the Environment Agency budget will be front-loaded over the period that he envisages to give urgent protection to frequently flooded areas, because they will need it?

Hilary Benn: As I said to the House yesterday, I will be looking at how we phase the increase to the £800 million as part of the comprehensive spending review announcement. I do not know, in the case of the particular properties to which the hon. Gentleman refers, whether the Environment Agency has yet done any work on what a scheme may look like. I undertake to make inquiries about that, as he has raised it with me.

Andrew Robathan: Can the Secretary of State answer the question that I put to him yesterday? The number of members of the armed forces has been cut because of the policies of the Prime Minister in a previous life, as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Barracks that could be used as operation-mounting bases to assist the civil authorities have been sold off. Can the Secretary of State tell me how many troops are available to Cobra to deploy to assist in emergencies such as this? Have any been taken off leave? Have any been taken off training for Iraq and Afghanistan, which are very dangerous places, for which they need training?

Hilary Benn: As I indicated to the hon. Gentleman yesterday, I will answer his question—but I hope that he will recognise and understand that, with respect, the most important priority in the last 24 hours has not been to provide people with the details of precisely where the troops came from. The most important priority has been to ensure that the resources are available both for the extraordinary operation at Walham and elsewhere. As I indicated yesterday, on a number of occasions, I have asked those responsible for responding to the emergency whether they have the resources that they need. I have been assured that that is the case. I hope that, given the hon. Gentleman's interest in the armed forces, which is long lasting and deeply felt, he will join me in praising the extraordinary efforts of the armed forces and all the other people who have been working so hard in this emergency.

Richard Taylor: I have today been informed that Environment Agency staff are being moved from vital duties elsewhere to guard the flood defences at Bewdley from theft. Will the Secretary of State consider introducing swingeing penalties for such attempted theft, and penalties for scrap dealers who are tempted to trade in those highly recognisable metal objects?

Hilary Benn: I am very concerned to hear that in the current circumstances some individuals might think that it is sensible to try to steal flood defences in place for the protection of the public. I undertake to raise that in the meeting at half past 5—and if the hon. Gentleman is able to join us, he can raise it himself.

Philip Hollobone: When these events are over, will it not be time to look again at creating an upstream water grid to take water across watersheds? That would be useful both in times of drought, to secure water supplies, and in times of heavy rainfall, to relieve floods downstream.

Hilary Benn: I understand that that has been looked into in the past. There are some obvious practical difficulties, including the considerable cost of shifting water from parts of the country where there is an excess of it—at present, that would be large parts of the country, but I am thinking in particular of the north and the Kielder dam—to areas which experience greater water stress. The immediate priority is to ensure that the resilience of the existing pumping supply system can be safeguarded in the face of events such as those we currently face.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My parliamentary neighbours in Gloucestershire have raised several points, but many hundreds of homes in my constituency have been flooded, spread over a wide area, which poses problems in itself. May I first pay tribute to the emergency services, who worked tirelessly throughout Friday night? I also wish to say that there has been great community spirit in Gloucestershire: everyone I met yesterday was cheerful, and helpful to their neighbours.
	I have three requests. First, will the Secretary of State confirm that when the Bellwin scheme arrangements kick in, Gloucestershire will qualify without limit for all the qualifying items? Secondly, will he make money available up front to Gloucestershire county council, as it has already incurred huge costs? Thirdly, will he assure us that the Environment Agency will have sufficient funds to carry out its maintenance responsibilities for watercourses better? Some flooding has been caused by poor maintenance of watercourses, and the EA says it does not have enough money to improve maintenance.
	The issue of investment by water companies has not been raised. Before the recent flooding, they told me that their capital investment was rationed because the Government had set a formula specifying how much of their profits they could invest. Will the Secretary of State look again at that?

Hilary Benn: On the last point, what we tell the companies is how much they must invest—and if they wish to invest more, that is up to them. On the Bellwin rules, funding is available for purposes that are clearly set out under long-established arrangements, and payments are made as and when claims are brought forward. On the Environment Agency and the maintenance of flood defences, over the past decade we have increased the money available for that from £300 million to £600 million, and over the next few years we will further increase it to £800 million. The agency has responsibility for that and expertise in it, so it is right that it should take decisions on how much to allocate to particular projects, and on ensuring that the flood defences that are in place are adequately maintained.

John Bercow: The right hon. Gentleman's characteristically detailed and courteous statement will be of great interest to my constituents, 55 of whom were evacuated from their homes to the Radcliffe centre in Church street, Buckingham in the early hours of Saturday morning.
	As many Members have testified, there was a serious incidence of flooding as long ago as 1998. It impacted significantly on my constituency, and it caused the Environment Agency to commission a survey from W.S. Atkins that produced many recommendations. I ask the right hon. Gentleman—in a genuine spirit of inquiry, as I did not hear him give an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth)—how many of those recommendations have been fully implemented nine years later.

Hilary Benn: I have not yet read that report, but as the hon. Gentleman has raised it I undertake to go away and have a look at it, and do my best to answer the question. I thank him for what he said about the efforts that have been made to help his constituents who have been affected.

Point of Order

Derek Conway: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is right that the House has had statements today, yesterday and many days before that from Secretaries of State. Many written ministerial statements have also been made, and one wonders whether there is some kind of league table in operation. We know that the Prime Minister is keen on quoting league tables at us. I wish to draw your attention to the statement in the  Official Report for Monday 23 July at column 46WS, in which the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor says that he will make a statement on the matter on which he is making a statement. We are a little concerned about whether such statements on potential statements are helping the Prime Minister to develop a league table on informing the House that is not entirely accurate. I hope that you and Mr. Speaker will reflect on that point.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point of order. As I have said before, the occupant of the Chair has many responsibilities, but when it comes to Ministers making statements, that is entirely their responsibility.

Criminal Damage (Graffiti)

James Duddridge: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for offences relating to graffiti; and for connected purposes.
	The Bill has two parts. It is aimed at bringing the perpetrators of the criminal act of graffiti to justice, in terms of restorative justice, by getting them first to clear up the graffiti and secondly to meet their victims. That could have a massive impact on our towns, communities, villages and roads.
	Mayor Giuliani in New York identified broken windows as an early indicator of the decline of society at street level. There is a similar decline in society at street level caused by graffiti. The Bill seeks to address that problem. It has cross-party support, and I especially thank the hon. Members for Wigan (Mr. Turner) and for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), who have been involved in drafting some of the detail. The Bill also has support from several national groups, including ENCAMS, which is known for the Keep Britain Tidy campaign. It also has the support of the British Transport police and the Restorative Justice Consortium.
	Graffiti has a precise definition, and it is criminal damage under the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Unfortunately, it is classified as "other criminal damage", so it is difficult to estimate the exact size of the problem. However, it is estimated that more than 50 per cent. of that category is graffiti. Other estimates suggest that only 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. of graffiti is reported.
	The Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 defines graffiti well as
	"painting, writing, soiling, marking or other defacing by whatever means".
	Hon. Members will know that the principal problem is not so-called graffiti art, but tagging, and it is on that issue that I shall concentrate—although graffiti art, whether one calls it art or not, if done on a private wall without the permission of the owner, is still criminal damage, under the 1971 Act.
	There is a massive social and financial cost to graffiti, and I shall deal first with the social cost. It is not only an eyesore but a permanent reminder of the decline in society. Paradoxically, those who are most affected are those who are least likely to be the victims of crime—the elderly and the vulnerable. It is as if there are two parallel universes—one of the perpetrators of such crimes, who are mostly young males, and the other of the older members of our community, who are so intimidated by those crimes.
	In 2001 the English house condition survey, produced by the then Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, estimated that 500,000 households or dwellings had graffiti daubed on their walls. Poorer neighbourhoods were the worst affected, with a fifth of residents citing problems with graffiti—twice as many as elsewhere.
	The financial costs of graffiti are difficult to pin down exactly, because so many people are affected—companies, local authorities, the British Transport police, train operating companies, Transport for London, utility companies, voluntary organisations and, particularly important, people's homes. In Southend the local authority spends more than £120,000 a year clearing up graffiti, but that grossly underestimates the costs for local authorities as statutory organisations. The police estimate that at least 10 officers in Southend deal with that criminal activity, at a cost of about £500,000. Furthermore, in terms of broader antisocial behaviour and damage, there are costs of £500,000 for closed circuit television.
	The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley estimates that the costs for Birmingham are more than £1 million. The most stunning figure, which probably under represented the problem and now needs updating in any case, was given in 2000 by a previous Home Secretary, who stated that the cost was in excess of £1 billion. It is probably much more now.
	How would the Bill work? At present, youth and adult courts can use restorative justice as part of the sentencing process. I want that to be made mandatory. In addition, we need to catch people earlier. From the youth perspective that would be at the reprimand or warning stage, and for adults it would be at the point of caution, when the offender has already admitted criminal damage. The Bill proposes to make all such cautions conditional on participation in restorative justice. The principal change would be to move from ad hoc action to a strong statutory position to catch everyone.
	Restorative justice works. At present it is available to only 1 per cent. of the population, but more than 40 per cent. of victims want to meet the offender. Between 75 and 95 per cent. of victims—depending on which study we read—said that they were satisfied with the restorative justice process.
	The perpetrators of those criminal acts need to understand that there are two elements in the damage they do—the physical and the emotional. On the physical element, they need to be involved in clearing up the graffiti. It may not always be possible or appropriate to clear up the site that they have damaged but they should have to clean up somewhere. The Restorative Justice Consortium has excellent examples showing how such schemes work powerfully, and ENCAMS works with the National Offender Management Service and Crime Concern on projects such as Thames21. In some areas, parents are involved in the process. They see their son—it is usually a son rather than a daughter—doing the work, which broadens the family's responsibility.
	The most powerful part of the Bill is the second aspect—the emotional element—which involves the offender meeting the victim. Not all victims want to meet the perpetrator close up, even in a facilitated, multi-agency situation, but it is possible for victims of similar crimes to meet that perpetrator. In Southend, Karon Grant, who is charged with the team clearing up graffiti, spends a lot of her time in restorative justice panels explaining the impact of the crime to children, mums and dads and other adults.
	I am sure that Members cannot understand why people commit the criminal act of graffiti, but a large number of offenders genuinely do not think that they are doing anything wrong. They do not understand that their actions are against the law, so bringing them face to face with their victims can help them to do so.
	The Bill could have some costs. Reparative services and restorative justice panels cost about £500 a person, but the most up-to-date statistics produced by the Ministry of Justice show how powerful such schemes are. The Bill would initially introduce a pilot to prove that the money that we spend on this is saved in other areas, but logically this should make an awful lot of sense, and locally it does seem to be working in Southend.
	In addition, Transport for London has a rather innovative scheme, in which it attempts civil recovery from the offender. That has two real advantages: money comes back into the system that can be spent on graffiti prevention, or if the perpetrator of the crime is unable or unwilling to pay the fine, they end up with a county court judgment against them, which provides a further deterrent to other individuals to commit this crime.
	In conclusion, this is a billion-pound problem looking for a practical and effective solution. The Bill is part of that solution. It will change the attitudes and behaviour of offenders for the benefit of the offenders and the benefit of society. In the unlikely event that this ten-minute Bill does not go further, I will seek, on a cross-party basis, to amend the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill to the same end.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by James Duddridge, Mr. Neil Turner, John Hemming, Daniel Kawczynski, Ian Lucas, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Greg Hands, Mr. Roger Williams, Sammy Wilson, Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, Richard Burden and Lynne Jones.

Criminal Damage (Graffiti)

James Duddridge accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for offences relating to graffiti; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 October, and to be printed [Bill 150].

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[18th Allotted Day]

Penal System

Madam Deputy Speaker: I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Nick Herbert: I beg to move,
	That this House considers that the Government's management of the prison system has become a national disgrace; believes that the Government by ignoring official projections of the prison population and failing to plan for sufficient capacity has allowed jails to become overcrowded, reconviction rates to rise and the Probation Service to become overstretched; further considers that the Government's resort to releasing prisoners early, including violent offenders, without risk assessment or accommodation checks is wholly unacceptable; notes that many of those released under the scheme have previously been refused release on Home Detention Curfew and that others have already re-offended when they should have been in custody; is concerned that offenders are also being transferred early to open prisons from which they can and do abscond at any time and that over 4,000 offenders released early on electronic tags have re-offended, committing over 1,000 violent crimes; further believes that the modest additional prison capacity announced by the Government will be insufficient; and calls upon the Government to halt the End of Custody Licence scheme and take immediate steps to ensure adequate prison capacity, the proper treatment and rehabilitation of offenders, and the safety of the British public.
	I am not surprised that the Government appear to have done their level best to minimise debate on this issue today. The first duty of any Government is to protect the public. Let us be clear about what that means. It means that if a Minister issues an instruction to release offenders early from prison, and those offenders go on to commit crimes, the public quite obviously have not been protected and Ministers have failed in their duty.
	The early release of prisoners is "simply wrong"—not my words but those of the former Lord Chancellor, just weeks before he announced the scheme. So much for rebuilding trust in politics. Already, 2,000 prisoners have been released early on to the streets, equivalent to two prisons. They have been released without risk assessment and without accommodation checks, even though it is a requirement of the scheme that they have an address to go to. Nearly 1,400 of them have previously been refused release on home custody detention; apparently those offenders were unsuitable for release early with an electronic tag, but it is perfectly acceptable to release them on to the streets with no tag.
	A fifth of the offenders released in the first week had committed crimes sufficiently serious that they were jailed for over a year. Three hundred and forty-four of them were violent offenders. The Prime Minister says that they had not committed serious violence, so apparently that makes their release acceptable. People who are jailed for violent assault or causing actual bodily harm are apparently entirely suitable to release from our prisons early. Well, it might be all right by the Government that more than 300 violent offenders have been tipped out of jail, but it is not all right by the public and it is not all right by us.
	One hundred and forty-nine of those released had been in prison for burglary; 22 for robbery; more than 400 for theft; and 65 for drug offences. The Government do not even know what 32 of those released were imprisoned for in the first place. The former Prime Minister repeatedly said that the scheme would be temporary; the new Lord Chancellor says that it might be permanent. That is a measure of Ministers' grip on the prison system.
	Now we know that at least six of the released prisoners committed crimes, including two offenders who carried out a robbery while on their way to see a probation officer. Their original crime, assaulting a police officer, was not considered serious enough, according to the Prime Minister, to merit an apology. Eighteen early release prisoners still remain unlawfully at large.
	Our position is unequivocal: those offenders should never have been released early in the first place, still less with more than £200 in their back pockets. That was their reward for getting out of prison early, and it is why the National Association of Probation Officers says that offenders are queuing up to get on to the scheme.
	When he announced the scheme on 19 June, the Minister said that
	"release on licence is not the same as Executive release. Releasing people on licence means that their sentence continues."—[ Official Report, 19 June 2007; Vol. 461, c. 1242.]
	Even by this Government's standards, that is remarkable spin. How can an offender's sentence be continuing if he is let out of jail, free to commit other offences? As the Prison Officers Association said,
	"The fact that they're not calling it executive release is just word games."

Ian Lucas: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not understand what release on licence means. It is a long-established concept, whereby for the duration of the sentence imposed by the court, the prisoner is subject to recall to prison if he commits a further offence. The concept is clear, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not appear to understand it.

Nick Herbert: How does the hon. Gentleman think that the 18 offenders who have not been tracked down will be recalled? As far as the public are concerned, those offenders are not continuing their sentence; they are free, out on the streets and able to commit further offences, which they could not otherwise have committed if they had been behind bars.
	We all know why the Government are releasing prisoners earlier: the prisons are full. The reason they are full is that the Government, not least the Lord Chancellor, repeatedly ignored warnings that more capacity would be needed. As long ago as 1992, in his report on the Strangeways riot, Lord Woolf warned that the prison population would double from 44,000 to well above current levels by next year, 2008. In 2000, when the current Lord Chancellor was Home Secretary, his officials predicted that the prison population would be at current levels by this year. Two years later, the lowest Home Office projection for the prison population today was 5,000 above the current capacity. The Government were told that greater capacity was needed, and they simply ignored the projections. Their great claim is to have provided another 20,000 prison places. Well, let us examine that claim.
	Only three new prisons in the past 10 years were commissioned by the Labour Government; the rest were commissioned by the previous Conservative Administration. In the year when the Government came to power, the number of new prison places was 4,716. By 2005, the number of new places had fallen to 940. During the current Lord Chancellor's watch, prison capacity building fell by 86 per cent. over three years. The Government also tell us that they are providing an additional 9,500 prison places by 2012, but on their own projections, that will not be enough. Total capacity will still be 4,000 places short of their medium projection for the prison population by that time, assuming that prisons will be full to the gunnels, with prisoners continuing to be doubled up. As Harry Fletcher of the National Association of Probation Officers said,
	"They've had eight, nine years and really done nothing... There's been no substantial building programme and no provision for probation."

Alan Beith: The hon. Gentleman prayed in aid Lord Woolf, but he should not forget that Lord Woolf also said that
	"no solution will be really effective, apart from reducing prison population... building more prisons is not the solution, not least because it means that more and more resources are being sucked into the hugely expensive process of building prisons",
	instead of
	"making effective non-prison sentences".

Nick Herbert: If we were able to rehabilitate offenders, we could reduce the prison population. We cannot rehabilitate them while prisons are so full, and I shall return to that point later.
	The early release scheme can only be, in the words of the Prison Officers Association, a short-term fix. The Government have admitted that 25,000 offenders will be released early in the next year, but they will reduce the prison population by only 1,200.
	At the current rate of incarceration, it is likely that prisons will fill up again and we will face a new crisis by the autumn. If the Government demur from that prediction, we would like to hear from them. As the Prison Officers Association has said, building new prisons
	"should have been done years ago".
	Last summer, in a BBC interview with Andrew Marr, the current Lord Chancellor said:
	"I've never had a problem about building more prisons...I was one of the Home Secretaries who greatly increased the capacity of the prison service".
	Clearly, that was nonsense, but he went on to say:
	"I wish it were possible to deal with criminals outside prison, but most people who end up in prison go there because community punishments have failed. So it isn't a difficulty for me about getting people into prison and keeping them there until they are better reformed."
	That was better. But then earlier this month there was an interesting front-page report in  The Times, which stated:
	"The Government will not be able to build its way out of the prison crisis, Jack Straw suggested yesterday. He indicated that the only way the pressure could be relieved was by sending fewer people to jail and using more non-custodial sentences...The Lord Chancellor...called for a 'national conversation' about the use of prison. He also spoke of the need to make community sentences more effective to build confidence and trust in non-custodial sentences."
	A year ago the Lord Chancellor said that he wanted to lock people up and that community sentences did not work; now he is saying that he wants to send fewer people to jail, have more community sentences, and have a conversation. So what is his current view? Is he going to be Judge Dredd or Mary Poppins? If he wants to build confidence in community sentencing, he has a very long way to go. Under the home detention curfew scheme that he introduced in 1999, more than 4,000 prisoners who were released early have reoffended, committing more than 7,000 crimes. More than 1,000 of those were violent offences, including one murder, 56 woundings and more than 700 assaults. Earlier this month, "Panorama" revealed serious flaws in the tagging of offenders. The public do not want a conversation with him. They want to feel safe. They want to walk home from work in the knowledge that they will not be mugged by somebody who should have been safely behind bars. They certainly do not want to be told that the answer is to weaken the sentencing of dangerous offenders.

Jeremy Wright: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the other things that the public and the judiciary need to be confident about is that, when sentences are passed by a judge, those sentences will be served? The expectation of the court will be that the sentence will be served as it was passed and the danger of early release schemes is that those sentences are not in fact served. That in its turn will undermine the public's confidence in the judiciary.

Nick Herbert: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. One of the worst effects of the early release scheme is that it undermines public confidence in sentencing, just as the Government undermined it in relation to their changes to determinate sentences, which mean that there is automatic early release after half the sentence is served—a proposal that we opposed.
	Ten years ago, the present Lord Chancellor said that indeterminate sentences gave
	"justice, above all for the victim, but also for the offender."—[ Official Report, 19 June 1996; Vol. 279, c. 902.]
	Now he wants to review those sentences. Perhaps he should have a word with the Home Secretary about his plans. Only last Thursday, she was berating hon. Members for not supporting the sentences. The former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) is worried. In his column for  The Sun he said:
	"It's no time for a u-turn on crime...what has been happening since the fragmentation of the Home Office...?"
	He said that the Home Secretary
	"has no control...over the froth that's being talked about indeterminate sentences".
	That is the problem with splitting the Home Office, which is no doubt why the current Secretary of State for Justice opposed the idea last year. One Department talks tough and the other lets prisoners out early.
	The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside was right about another thing: the new Prime Minister shares the blame for the current crisis in our prisons. In his diaries, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside describes the 2004 spending review, in which the then Chancellor would agree to fund only two thirds of the additional prison places requested. The then Chancellor removed the Home Office from the current spending review and froze its budget. Clearly, in his judgment law and order was not a priority. That is why we have the catastrophe of overcrowded prisons. Some 17,000 prisoners are doubling up in cells—twice as many as when Labour came to power. More than 1,000 cells designed for two people are occupied by three. That means that nearly a quarter of the entire prison population is housed in cells designed for one fewer person. The price of such overcrowding is that the rehabilitation of offenders is made impossible. As the prison service annual report says:
	"Crowding...dilutes the resource available for constructive activity. High throughput and frequent daily movement impact directly on regime delivery by diverting staff resources and making it more difficult to assess prisoners and allocate them to appropriate interventions."
	The number of prison officers has risen at only half the rate of the increase in the prison population, and prisoners are being transferred early to open prisons. Last summer, the governor of Ford open prison in my constituency warned that the transfer of prisoners who should really be in category C conditions
	"will mean almost inevitably that the abscond rate will go up."
	She went on to say:
	"Ministers have apparently been briefed to this effect and are taking this risk."
	The chief inspector of prisons has warned that high-risk offenders are being transferred to open prisons, some without any proper risk assessment. Murderers are walking out of open prisons at will. In an overstretched probation service, some officers supervise up to 80 offenders and, as a result, reconviction rates have soared. Of the people discharged from prison, 65 per cent. reoffend within two years—up from 59 per cent. in 1998. Among young people, the recidivism rate is even higher. Reoffending accounts for more than half of all crime.

George Howarth: I note that the hon. Gentleman has referred to Ford open prison in his constituency, so will he support it being upgraded to category C?

Nick Herbert: The problem is that the prison governor made that proposal behind the backs of people in the local community. Uniquely, they have an agreement with the prison not to house more serious offenders locally. I think that the local community would be willing to have a higher category prison located in the area, but only if the debate is held openly with them. In my view, it was disgraceful of the governor to make that proposal at the same time as she was negotiating renewal of the agreement with the local authority. I think that the right hon. Gentleman should be careful before he asks other hon. Members about matters to do with their constituencies.
	The Government's social exclusion unit has estimated the cost of reoffending to the taxpayer at more than £11 billion a year. It is essential that that depressing spiral is broken. Nearly one fifth of prisoners have been convicted of drugs offences, and drugs are rife in prisons. Ninety per cent. of prisoners have a significant mental health problem. Prison suicides have leaped this year, but we will never deal with such problems without adequate prison capacity.

Philip Hollobone: Is not a significant part of the problem the fact that there are 8,000 foreign prisoners in British jails? The Government have not done nearly enough to ensure that they are repatriated to their country of origin, so that they can serve their full sentences in secure detention, at the expense of their own taxpayers.

Nick Herbert: I agree with my hon. Friend, and one of the ironies of the current early release scheme is that it does not apply to foreign nationals. One would have thought an obvious way to deal with the overcrowding problem would be to remove foreign national prisoners more swiftly, perhaps before the end of their sentences. That would be preferable to releasing domestic prisoners and putting them out on the streets, where they are able to reoffend.
	As I said, 90 per cent. of prisoners have a significant mental health problem, but we will never deal with that without adequate prison capacity. Not only have the Government missed their own pitifully low target to reduce overcrowding, but they appear to be complacent about the situation. The Prime Minister was barely briefed on the matter last week, and the Minister with responsibility for prisons, the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), told "The Westminster Hour" on Sunday that
	"in general terms, the Labour Government has got it right now."
	What could he have meant by that? What does he think is "right" about the prisons being at bursting point? Last year, the Lord Chancellor said that he was proud of the Government's record on law and order in that respect. Is pride what he feels when he learns that prisoners whom he has released have committed robbery?
	In the biography of the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside, an "adviser" famously remarks:
	"God alone knows what Jack Straw did for four years..."
	He added that the Home Office was "a giant mess." Actually, we know what he did. He talked tough on sentencing, but he failed to build prisons. He promised action on violent crime, but it soared by a third. He said that he would protect the public, but he let prisoners out on tags, and they committed the most serious offences. In spite of my belief in rehabilitation, when it comes to his record, I am afraid that the Lord Chancellor is a serial offender who has no chance of going straight.
	The Lord Chancellor should have begun his new role with an urgent meeting with the Prime Minister to review capacity. He should have looked at the thousands of foreign nationals who remain in our prisons and asked why more are not being deported. He should have asked what happened to the prison ship Weare, which was bought by the Home Office for £3.7 million, and skilfully sold off last year for a rumoured £2 million. Instead, within days of taking office, he released hundreds of violent offenders on to the streets. The Government's management of the prison system has become nothing less than a national disgrace. They are failing prisoners, who cannot be rehabilitated in overcrowded conditions. They are failing the staff, who are being asked to do an almost impossible job. Above all, they are failing the public, whom the Government are putting at risk.

Jack Straw: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"welcomes the record of the Government which has since 1997 cut crime, reformed the penal system, invested in record prison places, created a legislative framework which provides tough and effective sentences, introduced risk assessment and offender management systems, introduced and seen ever increasing numbers of offenders complete accredited programmes, enabled record numbers of offenders to pay back to the community through unpaid work, ensured that offenders in the community who pose a risk to the public are recalled to custody, radically reformed the youth justice system and brought the prison and probation services together under the National Offender Management Service with a renewed focus on protecting the public and reducing re-offending."
	I welcome this debate, and I am grateful to the Opposition for enabling it, because there is no more important priority for this Government—and, I hope, all Governments—than ensuring the safety of our citizens. I am proud of our achievements in that respect. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) forgot to mention that over the past 10 years, crime has fallen by 35 per cent. There are record numbers of police, and the chances of being a victim of crime are the lowest for 25 years. We have provided 20,000 new prison places and will be building another 9,500. More offences and offenders than ever before—over 1.3 million in 2006—are being brought to justice. More of the most violent and dangerous offenders are being sent to jail for longer.
	That record contrasts starkly with that of the Conservatives in their 18 years in government. They failed: in their 18 years in government, crime doubled, police numbers fell, and the number of people convicted plummeted by a third, with only one crime in 50 leading to a conviction. The party's complacency was insulting to the British people, who responded by evicting it from office. Ten years later, the Conservatives' approach is just as incoherent as it was back in 1997. They talked tough, but they failed to support many of the measures that we introduced to cut crime. They opposed tougher sentences for murder, and for sexual and violent offences. They opposed indeterminate sentences for those who commit serious sexual or violence offences. They opposed the new five-year minimum custodial sentences for unauthorised possession of firearms, and at first they dismissed our antisocial behaviour measures as gimmicks. For all their fancy words about more prison places, the Opposition have consistently voted against the taxation and public spending that would allow any new prisons to be built.

Edward Garnier: rose—

Jack Straw: Of course I will give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman; indeed, I will refer to him in a moment, so bring him on.

Edward Garnier: Will the former Home Secretary tell us precisely where the 20,000 additional places are that he claims have been built? Which prisons are they in? What new buildings are they in? Is it not true that the majority of those new places are simply the result of prisoners doubling up in single cells and trebling up in double cells?

Jack Straw: I am afraid that I cannot provide the hon. and learned Gentleman with all the information, but some of the places are in new prisons. Some are in additional units in existing prisons, and some are the result of doubling or trebling in prison cells, which is far better— [Interruption.] I thought that the Opposition, too, were in favour of making the best use of existing accommodation, which is what we have done. The number of rehabilitation courses that prisoners have been able to take has vastly increased since the Conservative Administration.
	Later, we will come on to the details of the pledges made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, who continues to imply what the shadow Home Secretary has made explicit. The shadow Home Secretary has offered to "spend what it takes" to build new prisons. He admits that he has no idea how much that is, but we can give him all the calculations that he needs.
	At the same time, the Conservatives have made wild pledges to cut—not to increase—£21 billion of public spending. They disagree with one another about what their policy should be. The shadow Home Secretary is dreaming up uncosted plans for new prisons, while the hon. and learned Gentleman who adorns the Front Bench is saying that prison is not the answer and is calling for a review of sentencing. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that he is on a massive "voyage of discovery", but that voyage is clearly taking place on a mystical vessel crowded out with Conservative Front Benchers, all heading for some fantasy island, with just one problem—they have no captain, no map, no compass and they cannot agree on whether to go forward, back, left or right.
	There is, I will concede, one thing on which the Conservatives do agree—they want new prisons, but they do not want them in their own back yard. The hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire), for example, a shadow Home Affairs Minister, says that he wants more prisons, as long as they are not in his parliamentary constituency, Hornchurch, where a plan for a prison in Rainham is, apparently, "wholly inappropriate". We have a little indication that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs is in the same position. Even when there is a proposal to increase the category of his open prison at Ford from D to C—yes, to relieve some overcrowding, by making it more secure—he says that he is wholly opposed to that as well.

Nick Herbert: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the management of a prison from which, on average, over the past two years two offenders a week, including murderers, have absconded?

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman must know, first, that if the prisons are open prisons, which I assume he supports, there will be some absconds. If his policy is for no open prisons, let him say so. The number of absconds from open prisons has dropped dramatically from more than 1,000 in 1996-97, when there was a Government whom he supported, to nearly half that number, 556, in the last year for which we have figures. Secondly, if his concern is about absconds from an open prison, why on earth is he opposing proposals— [ Interruption. ] He says build a fence, but his proposals are to do exactly that.

Humfrey Malins: I say straight away to the right hon. Gentleman that over the years I have had a great deal of respect for the way in which he has approached these matters, particularly when he was Home Secretary. The Opposition are not always right, and the Government are not always right. There is much to be said for moving forward in a consensual way sometimes. One of the Government's experiments with night courts at Bow street, for example, was something of a disaster and had to be abandoned. Occasionally, things go wrong.

Jack Straw: If I may return the compliment without ruining a fine career ahead of him, I have always had great respect for the hon. Gentleman. We have always had sensible and respectful conversations about these matters. It is true of all Administrations that some of their proposals, which they think will work—especially in the area of criminal justice, where they are inevitably dealing with the most unpredictable, chaotic members of the community—will not work. That does not necessarily mean that they should not try them. I personally thought that night and evening courts would work, but that turned out not to be the case. That has worked in other countries, but not here.
	The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs made much of the fact that rates of opening new places had not kept pace with some estimates of likely demand for places. Forecasting in this area, I readily accept, is not an exact science, but before the Opposition start pulling the mote from our eye, they ought to examine the beam in their own. The record of the previous Administration was dire. Shortly before I became Home Secretary, more than 1,000 police cells had been used to cope with overcrowding on a considerable scale throughout the early and mid-1990s.
	Yes, I did ask the Prison Service to double and in some cases to treble accommodation because I judged, and so did the Prison Service, that that was a far better way of accommodating the increase in the prison population than by the use of police cells. We have had to use police cells again. I regret that, and I am working very hard to reduce that.
	However, it was at the end of the 1980s, 10 years into the then Conservative Administration, that the biggest crisis ever hit the service. It was so bad that the then Home Secretary, now the noble Lord Hurd of Westwell, had to come to the House—I remember sitting on the Opposition Benches and listening to the statement—to announce not that over a period 1,500 to 2,000 places would be saved, but that at a stroke 3,500 places would be saved by extending remission of sentences of less than 12 months from one third to one half of sentence length. The hon. Gentleman says that we have done that, but I remind him that that was supposed to be a temporary measure. It was made permanent in the Criminal Justice Act 1991.
	The end of custody licence is necessary to cope with the current prison numbers, and it is proportionate to the problem. It involves the early release of prisoners who are serving less than four years just 18 days— [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. A chorus of sedentary comments across the House is not helping progress in a strictly time-limited debate.

Jack Straw: Indeed, I blame the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), not the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle).
	The end of custody licence involves the early release of prisoners serving less than four years 18 days—just two and a half weeks—before the date when they would have been released in any event. In other words, eligible prisoners due in normal circumstances to come out today, 24 July, would, under the scheme, have been released on 6 July. I understand the point about the reassurance of the public, so it is important to put this into context.
	Overall, average determinate sentence lengths for adults discharged from prison have increased by more than two months since 1995, and notwithstanding home detention curfew, the average time spent in prison has also increased from 14.7 months in 1995 to 16.8 months in 2005. That obviously does not take account of the effect of ECL, but ECL cannot have any significant effect on those numbers. The hon. Gentleman is dining out on the fact that prisoners are being released early, which they have been under all systems of sentencing.
	Although it now appears that the Opposition are about to change their mind, as I will explain, I would advise them to continue with a system under which, if prisoners earn good behaviour and have to be reintroduced to the community, they are released before their full term. The proportion of the nominal sentence actually served has marginally increased, not decreased, from 46 per cent. to 48 per cent. over the period from 1995 to 2005.
	As the hon. Gentleman knows, the arrangements for ECL exclude many categories, including those who are serious, violent and dangerous offenders. But because ECL involves such a relatively short period of prior release, it is done by assessment against set criteria and not individual risk assessments of the kind that necessarily apply to HDC and parole, where the prior release times are much longer, and in the case of either, the offences may be more serious. As I explained, there are a number of exclusions from ECL, including those who have no release address, or who have previously broken temporary release arrangements or escaped from custody.
	The logical consequence of the hon. Gentleman's argument was that no one should ever be released from prison unless we could be certain that they would not commit a further offence. The dismal truth is that quite a large number of prisoners, however long they are kept, are likely to commit a further offence. Would that it were otherwise. One of the reasons I am so keen on working to improve the effectiveness of community sentences and also public understanding, but above all the effectiveness, is so that there is less likelihood of those offenders reoffending, but some will. I strongly advise the hon. Gentleman against going into the next election saying that once someone is admitted to prison, they are never going to be released, or that the Conservatives will abandon any idea of early release for good behaviour, or that no offender will ever commit a further offence.
	A luxury of opposition, as Conservative Members so ably demonstrate, is that they do not need to come up with the answers. The job of Government is to come up with answers. Although we understand that an effective penal policy must be based on more than the bricks and mortar of prisons, we have also recognised the need for additional places, which is why in the past 10 years we have provided additional prison places at twice the rate as under the previous Administration. Sorry, but that is a fact. It took the Conservatives 18 years to produce just under 20,000 places. It has taken us 10. In other words, they added an average of 1,000 places a year, whereas we have added an average of 2,000 places a year.  [ Interruption. ] There is no dubiety about that—it is the truth.
	In addition, my right hon. Friend the previous Home Secretary announced a further building programme to deliver 8,000 new prison places by 2012. On top of that, a further 1,500 places were announced by the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), on 19 June. Work has started on 500 of those extra places, the first of which will come into use in January next year.
	I welcome this debate, not least because I hope that, as the hon. Gentleman said, we can agree that it is time to have a sensible national debate about sentencing and the use of prison in England and Wales. Lord Hurd of Westwell sought to tackle that when he was Home Secretary back in 1987. Would that we had heard similar balanced remarks from the hon. Gentleman, who wishes to succeed him in due course. Lord Hurd told this House of
	"the need to strike a balance between tough sentences for those who pose a threat to society and lesser sentences for those who pose no such threat. Hence the emphasis which we have placed on tough and challenging alternatives to custody".—[ Official Report, 16 July 1987; Vol. 119, c. 1296.]
	That sentiment was expressed as the Tory Administration were seeking again to address the pressure of prison numbers. They had first sought to do so in 1984 by increasing parole in order to double the overall rate of release. I was reminded of Lord Hurd's wise words when reading the detailed comments of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, who favours a review of sentencing. He says that there are
	"far too many people in prison for them humanely and safely to be kept in prison".
	I agree with that, although he has gone on to say that prison does not work, which I question. Yet his bosses take a completely different view. "Build more prisons," they say, without any details of how to pay for them.
	Let me come on to some of the key issues that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs must face if he is going to be serious about having a prison policy. He told the  Littlehampton Gazette—of which, I hope he tells its editor, I have become an assiduous reader—that
	"offenders should serve their sentence in full—period."
	 [ Interruption. ] He says yes. Fine—if that is the policy of the Conservative party, I invite him to consider its effect. The effect of prisoners serving their sentence—that is, their nominal sentence—in full, period, would be to add 60,000 places to the prison population over a period of at least 10 years, on top of the other projections. If he questions that figure, I am happy to make available independent statisticians in my Department or the Office for National Statistics, or he can go to the Library if he prefers. He has committed himself to 60,000 extra places, and the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) has said something similar:
	"It's ridiculous...The first step would be to scrap Tony Blair's parole reforms, which now allow 30,000 criminals a year to be freed on licence before they've even completed half their sentence."
	An extra 60,000 prison places would cost £6.6 billion to build and £2.2 billion a year to run.

Edward Garnier: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Jack Straw: Of course. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will let me know whether the Conservatives' policy is that prisoners
	"should serve their sentences in full—period."

Edward Garnier: Let me return the Secretary of State to what this debate is about—the Government's policy, which is a national disgrace. A moment ago, he quickly elided the concept of ECL and the 18-day early release system. Most ECL prisoners serve relatively short terms, not life sentences, and it is in the last 18 days of a short sentence that most of the resettlement work is done, so that the probation service, social services, the housing people and the jobcentre people can come into prisons and interview those about to be released to ensure that they can then move out into the wider world and pick up where they left off. Is there not an argument, which the former Home Secretary should get his head around, that by releasing these people early, without allowing them the opportunity to be resettled, he is merely building up a reoffending problem that is foreseeable and has been predicted?

Jack Straw: I do not accept that. We have provided additional resources to the probation service of, I think, £300,000, and we will continue to do so. Of course I regret any reoffending by any prisoner. However, we are talking about releasing people two and a half weeks early: anybody would think that we were talking about murderers sentenced for a minimum tariff of 20 years being let out after a year. The hon. and learned Gentleman must face the fact that there is always a risk when prisoners are released. We have increased the amount of resources to the probation service by more than 70 per cent. in real terms, above what the previous Conservative Administration provided, because I recognised as Home Secretary, as did my successors, the need to have end-to-end management of sentences. We also extended the period of licence to the end of the sentence, not the three-quarters point. He is absolutely right—we are talking about short-sentence prisoners who would be let out in any event, and always in no more than two and a half weeks' time.
	The oddest thing of all is the complaint that we should not give these prisoners any money, which has been part of the criticism levelled at us by the Conservatives. They are not eligible for benefit, but we are told, time and again, that we should release them on to the streets without any money at all—without the £200. That would be facile in the extreme, as well as being inhumane.

Edward Garnier: That is disingenuous.

Jack Straw: It certainly is not. I listened with great care to the hon. and learned Gentleman, who faffed around. He did not say whether he was supporting the Leader of Opposition's policy, which is to end parole, or his senior Front-Bench spokesman's policy, which is to ensure that prisoners serve their nominal sentence in full—period.

Nick Herbert: While the Secretary of State is talking about sentencing policy, could he tell me what his proposed review of indeterminate sentencing will mean? Could he assure me that the Home Secretary agrees with him that there is a problem in the operation of indeterminate sentences given that on Thursday she berated the Opposition—wrongly, as a matter of fact—for not supporting them?

Jack Straw: There are two different matters here—one is the concept of indeterminate sentences, which has much merit, and the other is the practice of indeterminate sentences. All sentence structures must be kept under review. The previous Administration did so when they were being wise. As I said to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), we are dealing with an area where prisoners' behaviour is unpredictable. We are also dealing with the response to the messages that we send out as regards 30,000 sentences. Although one can predict some of that behaviour, one cannot predict it all.
	I cannot tell the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs the results of the review, as it is currently under way. It would be very curious to invite somebody—

Nick Herbert: What is it about?

Jack Straw: If the hon. Gentleman wants to know what it is about, I suggest that he examine the terms of reference of the Carter review, which has already been established. I was going to deal with this at the end of my speech, but I will do it now. As part of my Sunday reading, I read  The Sunday Telegraph, which is usually extremely informative on further splits in the Conservative party and other difficulties that the Conservatives have faced, including in Ealing, Southall and Sedgefield. I do not wish to intrude on private grief, but the public interest requires it. The right hon. Member for Witney—currently in Rwanda—said that he had asked the hon. Gentleman to establish a review of prison policy. I think that it has only just been established, and I am not asking him what the results are. I was astonished that the Leader of the Opposition was saying that they were going to have a review, and thought that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would follow it. He has only just caught up. We spend millions of pounds on researchers in Conservative central office—we have trebled the amount of money that they receive—but they are still doing poor work. If they had Googled "prisons review", they could have found out that on 10 May my predecessor announced that Lord Carter of Coles was to conduct a review about the balance between the supply of and demand for prison places, which will of course include the practice of indeterminate sentences. Moreover, the Constitutional Affairs Committee, which is shortly to be renamed the Justice Committee, is conducting a review of sentences and other matters, on which I will be giving evidence later this evening.
	We have to have a rational, sensible debate about the totality of the prison estate and how we use other methods. I understand that it is very difficult because, on one level, for all of our constituents, the demand is that where a serious offence is committed, so-and-so should be jailed. I understand that—we have all faced it—and I do not apologise for the fact that I presided over an increase of 20,000 prison places, because I thought that it was necessary.

Jeremy Browne: The right hon. Gentleman touched upon a very important aspect of the debate, which is the reduction of reoffending rates, and the attempt to smooth the transition back into normal society for those leaving prison. At the moment, reoffending rates for some categories, particularly young offenders serving very short sentences, are as high as 92 per cent. What measures does the Secretary of State think could be taken to reduce that figure, and will he expand on the point about special provision being made to help ex-prisoners get into the workplace, find housing and make a meaningful contribution to society?

Jack Straw: There is a real problem with young, persistent serious offenders, many of whom have drifted into criminal behaviour at a very early age. They often come from chaotic, dysfunctional families or—even worse from their point of view—are looked-after children, typically in local authority care. There are no easy answers that allow us to break this cycle. Some of those young people have to be locked up for the protection of the public, and sometimes for their own protection, to give them an opportunity to be educated. We have expanded the custodial estate for such prisoners.
	One of the reasons my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister established the Department for Children, Schools and Families, and a joint responsibility in respect of the Youth Justice Board for the Secretary of State in that Department and myself, which I greatly welcome, was to look more widely at how we divert some of those young people from offending before they get to that point, and how we might support them better if and when they do offend.
	I know that time is pressing, so I want to finish by saying this. We must have a sensible debate, and I welcome the contribution that some Opposition Members have made. Conservative Front Benchers have to make up their mind about this matter. We could, if we wanted to, carry on increasing the population, not just to the levels we propose—it will have to be increased—but to the levels to which it has been increased in the United States. The US now has 2 million people in prison. Its incarceration rate is five times that of the UK, and we have one of the highest incarceration rates in Europe. Such an increase would mean not 80,000 prisoners but 400,000, and not 140 prisons, but 700. The public may want that. I do not think that they do—I think that they want to go a different way—and if they do not, all of us have to participate in this debate about the sensible level of risk and the sensible balance between putting people in prison and doing our best to take them out of crime outside prison.

Andrew Murrison: The Secretary of State has talked a lot about the state of prisons and overcrowding. Does he agree that one easy win might be to remove prison cells from the extraordinary smoking provisions that his Government introduced in the Health Act 2006? Those provisions appeared to be endorsed by his Cabinet colleagues as recently as 26 June, when the then Secretary of State for Health made the incredible assertion that a prison cell is akin to a prisoner's own home.

Jack Straw: I am sorry, I was briefed about most things, but—

Jeremy Browne: You can smoke in prisons.

Jack Straw: Yes, you can.
	When I went to Belmarsh recently, two things struck me. Belmarsh is not just a high security prison, but a local prison for that part of south-east London. One of the things that struck me was that far fewer prisoners were addicted to drugs in prison, which is reflected by the numbers. The number of prisoners testing positive for drugs has dropped from about 30 per cent. to about 9 per cent., and the regimes in prison are much better than they ever were.  [ Interruption. ] It happens to be true, I say to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough.
	The second thing I kept thinking was that something was not in the air. There was an absence, or a great reduction, in tobacco smoke, which usually fills prisons. My view is that prisoners should be able to smoke in prison cells, if they want to—

Humfrey Malins: So should MPs. What about us?

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman says MPs should too.
	I am unapologetic about the fact that alongside the doubling and trebling of prison cells, I also arranged for televisions to be introduced into prison cells, apart from for prisoners on the basic regime—those who had broken prison rules or were just being introduced to prison.
	In conclusion, I agree with many of those in the Opposition, but I do not accept the rather rabid approach taken by the new shadow Justice Minister, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs. That is not true of the hon. and learned Gentleman, who is actually far to the left of many of us. He would actually let people out; I am in the middle, between the two of them. I welcome the opportunity to set out our approach to penal policy. It is a challenging area that requires hard choices and difficult decisions. We take our responsibilities seriously. This Government's record of cutting crime, increasing police numbers and increasing prison places shows that we can assure the public that their safety is our paramount concern.

David Heath: I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue. I agree that there is a need for a national conversation about it, and I hope that it is slightly better informed and more valuable than is sometimes the case. The motion is extremely timely because there is a crisis in our prison system. It is one that has developed not in the past few weeks, but in the past few years. Many of us recall the situation under the previous Conservative Administration. I remember, as a chairman of a police authority, having to find a large number of police cells to help out with long-term prisoners, and those cells were no longer available for their primary purpose. That was a very difficult circumstance.
	I tend to agree that the position during the past few weeks with regard to early release, and the system's lack of ability to cope with the risk assessment of some of those released, has been shambolic, and we should say so. The Government have not shown themselves in the best light through their inability to perform their basic duties appropriately.
	What I cannot agree with or accept is the simplistic demand for more and more prison capacity. It does not make sense. It is not a logical response to the situation in the country. When I see Conservative Members blithely saying that they would like to double the prison population, and spend an extra £3.4 billion on building prisons—an extra penny on income tax—

Nick Herbert: The extra penny on income tax was your idea.

David Heath: Our plan was a penny on income tax to go towards education, but the hon. Gentleman's party wants a penny on income tax to build more prisons, and support a policy of failure. Is that the right way? It does not seem appropriate to me at all. The Leader of the Opposition seems to be all over the place on the issue, too. Sometimes he wants to hug a hoodie, and other times, he wants—as he told the  Evening Standard—to convict and lock up more and more criminals. I presume it depends on whether one catches him on a flip or a flop. The former is a flip, and the latter a flop.
	The Government have a problem with their attitude, and they know it perfectly well. It was encapsulated by the response from the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) at Justice questions the other day. He recognised the fact that we cannot simply carry on increasing the prison population, but went on to say:
	"I want to see the figure reduced, but we are building more prison places because, inexorably, there will be people who need to be in prison."—[ Official Report, 18 July 2007; Vol. 463, c. 266.]
	He sees the increase in the number of people in prison as inexorable, while at the same time, he wants a reduction. I do not think that it is inexorable because we need to find ways of making our penal policy more effective. Let us be clear that only one aspect of prison is effective; it works in only way: protecting the public from the activities of those who are locked up.

Angela Watkinson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that not only the length of a prison sentence is important, but the person's fitness to lead a productive and law-abiding life at the point of release—whenever that happens? There should be opportunities not simply to rehabilitate prisoners' attitudes to life but to educate and train them so that they are ready for employment.

David Heath: The hon. Lady is right and that is the substance of what I shall say shortly.
	Prison works in the sense that it stops offenders knocking people over the head or robbing their homes while they are inside. It does not act as a deterrent—that is obvious from the statistics—and it does not reduce reoffending. We have an extraordinary rate of recidivism. In rehabilitation terms, we have a process that does not work. The Liberal Democrats have called for some time for an evidence-based approach, whereby we support the processes that work and reject those that do not in reducing crime and offending.
	The public do not want more people in prison; they want less crime on our streets. We therefore need urgently to stabilise and then reduce the prison population.

Andrew Murrison: I accept a great deal of the hon. Gentleman's comments. However, does he accept that one cannot possibly have effective rehabilitation as long as there is overcrowding? The current prison population means that there must be more prison cells. Surely he understands that.

David Heath: Precisely so—there cannot be effective rehabilitation and overcrowding.
	However, let us consider the people who are in prison. Are they the right people? I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) and read the motion carefully. First, it does not deal properly with those with mental illness in our prison estate. The hon. Gentleman mentioned in passing that 90 per cent. of prisoners have some symptoms of mental illness, but simply went on to say that that means building more prisons. It does not. It means that we should have more treatment centres that are capable of dealing with mental illness. When one in 10 of our prisoners are functionally psychotic and in ordinary cells, it does not do them, the Prison Service or society any good.
	I hoped that the new Lord Chancellor would say today that he had reviewed the position on building more prisons and reached the sensible conclusion that we need to build more secure mental health provision in the Prison Service instead. That is the logical way in which to move people who should not be in prison out of the prison estate. That would deal with their needs and those of society. A sensible approach would be to use the money that the right hon. Gentleman has earmarked for prison expansion to increase the places in secure mental health provision. We have only 1,150 places in Ashworth, Broadmoor and Rampton. That is hugely insufficient to meet the needs of the current prison population. Why do we not tackle that scarcity rather than simply building more run-of-the-mill prison cells?

Dan Norris: Does the hon. Gentleman consider sex offenders to have mental health problems? How would he tackle the high levels of reoffending among that group of people? They pose a genuine concern to the public and my understanding of Liberal Democrat policy is that proposals about tackling those serious and worrying offenders are unclear.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman uses the term "sex offender", but it covers a wide spectrum of offences. I believe that there are those who need active support through a mental health programme and that it is wrong that they are not given it. However, there is a wider spectrum of those who are simply violent criminals who express their violence in sexual offences. I am not sure whether they fall into the same category—I think that the hon. Gentleman probably agrees.
	Additional secure mental health provision is necessary. Secondly, we need secure drug treatment centres. Again, there is a huge lack. Ten thousand prisoners are in prison for drugs offences. We know that three quarters of all male prisoners took illegal drugs in the 12 months before their imprisonment. Yet our secure drug treatment centres have only 2,500 places. Again, I had hoped that, instead of building more bog-standard prisons, we would deal with the problem, which clogs up the system. People cannot be sent for the drug treatments that the courts prescribe through legislation that the Lord Chancellor introduced when he was Home Secretary. Those orders cannot be complied with because insufficient drug treatment places are available.
	Meanwhile, notwithstanding the small reduction in illegal drugs that are detected in prisons, drugs remain a major problem in many of our prisons. Many offenders go to prison without a drugs problem but leave with one. Drugs are a major motor of reoffending as they are of crime generally. They are the major motor of acquisitive crime.

Humfrey Malins: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. However, when he says that 2,500 drug rehabilitation places are available, he knows that, because of Government underfunding, not nearly all of them are occupied. As well as more beds, we need more funding. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that residential rehabilitation beds are cheaper than prison?

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is right. They are cheaper—and not only by a bit. I am informed that a residential rehabilitation bed costs £674.10 a week—the hon. Gentleman holds up his excellent pamphlet on the subject, which he was good enough to send me. That is £6,000 less per annum than the equivalent prison place. The case therefore makes economic as well as social policy sense.
	My third point takes me back to the comments of the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson). We hugely underestimate the need and capacity for training and education in prison. If many prisoners share one common characteristic it is that they underperform in their scholastic achievement. Their reading age is generally 50 per cent. below what is expected of an 11-year-old; numeracy is 66 per cent. below, and writing is 80 per cent. below. All those who consider penal policy carefully agree that a major factor in the propensity for criminality is finding it difficult to cope with normal social behaviour because of that lack of attainment.
	We should not only massively increase the scope for education—we cannot do that in an overcrowded system—but we must make much of the work in prisons compulsory. We should expand it so that it is much more focused on things that are socially useful. We should also pay prisoners properly for their work in prison, and let it contribute to compensation funds so that we do something for our victims, too.
	I hope that the Lord Chancellor has had the opportunity to read the submission from Citizens Advice—

Jack Straw: Lord Chancellor.

David Heath: What did I say?

Jack Straw: Lord Justice.

David Heath: Lord Chief Justice—good lord, no.

Jack Straw: Lord High Chancellor.

David Heath: Indeed, Lord High Chancellor. I ask him to examine the submission from Citizens Advice, which makes sensible suggestions about what could be provided in prison, not only to help prisoners manage their affairs on entry to prison and make sure that their homes and loved ones are properly cared for, but to prepare them effectively for release so that they do not suffer an immediate crisis on leaving prison, which, without proper support, results in reoffending.

Alan Beith: I want to illustrate my hon. Friend's earlier point, by reminding him that the inspector of prisons has twice reported that Acklington prison in my constituency is unable to fulfil its designated training role because of overcrowding. She has run out of words to describe the situation, which she regards as unsatisfactory.

David Heath: That is not an uncommon situation, sadly. Those who work in the prison education service would give a despondent and discouraging view of what they can now provide and of what they could provide, given appropriate support.
	The fourth element in reducing the prison population is doing something much more effective with what are often disparagingly called community sentences—I prefer to call them public service sentences. We have to make them much more appropriate to the crimes that are committed and much more related to the communities in which they are committed.
	That point was made by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge) during his ten-minute Bill speech, which immediately preceded this debate. His Bill hit the nail on the head. He talked about the effect of minor vandalism and graffiti, and about how restorative justice procedures could make people not only put right the damage that they have done within the community, but be seen to be making amends. Also, all the evidence supports the view that they would be far less likely to offend as a result of that than they would be after a short prison sentence. All the evidence shows that sentences of less than three months have very little deterrent effect—in fact, quite the reverse. They tend to encourage a sense of criminality and an identification with criminality among those who might otherwise be diverted from more serious offences. That is something on which we need to concentrate.
	My final point about reducing the numbers in the estate is about the position of children. We have 2,200 people under 18 in prison. That is not the right place for children. I accept that there are young offenders who make the lives of people in communities a misery. We need to do something effective to stop them reoffending and, particularly if they are persistent offenders of a certain type, to remove them from the community, so that they can no longer inflict damage upon it. However, I do not think that prison is the right way of doing that. We have to have alternative and more appropriate ways of detaining young people.
	I return to restorative justice processes, which are shown to be particularly effective with young people. We have a community justice panel in Chard in Somerset, where there is a 5 per cent. reoffending rate. Let us compare that with the rates for prison and consider which has the most effective outcome.

David Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why it is that as soon somebody under 18 enters the justice system they cease to be a young person or a youth and they become a child?

David Heath: I am very happy to call the person a child, a youth or whatever the hon. Gentleman chooses. I just note the fact that they are under 18. Therefore, for many of us they are children and they need to be treated as children, even if they are extremely badly behaved children who need particular measures to put them straight. They are still not beyond redemption, although some might take the view that they are.
	I want to finish now, because this is a short debate. If those various measures were put in place, we could see a substantial and sustained reduction in the prison population. We need more research on the subject of early release. I am aware that the Lord Chancellor recently received correspondence from a professor of criminology saying precisely that. He has a point: we do not have a proper research base for the different options available for early release. That needs to be put into effect through controlled trials.
	We need more active management of the prison estate. We seem to accept that some of the hugely inefficient and inappropriate Victorian prisons in the centres of cities are still the right way of keeping prisoners, even if they happen to be in the wrong places, to be very expensive and to occupy extremely expensive pieces of land that could be sold for redevelopment. I would like much more active management of the prison estate, so that we can get the most appropriate accommodation in the right places and get rid of some of the large Victorian buildings that have outlived their usefulness as prisons.
	My final point touches on what I think the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs was trying to say earlier—there was a little crossfire between the two Front Benches—about what the length of time served in a sentence means. I have long advocated honesty in sentencing and I will continue to do so. It is long overdue and is important to the public attitude towards the criminal justice system. That does not mean that the Executive should have no discretion in the system, but it does mean that judges should construct sentences so that there is a clear term that is going to be served and the public understand that. There should also be an additional term that will be served if there is not appropriate behaviour on the part of the prisoner. Instead of having x minus y, we would have x plus y. If the system made it clear that a prison sentence of a certain duration meant precisely that, the public would have much more confidence in our system and would believe that justice was being done. At the moment I do not believe that they have any such confidence, and the events of the past few weeks have served to undermine that confidence still further.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Had there been a 10-minute limit placed on Back-Bench speeches, this would be the point at which I would be reminding the House of it. However, it would be very helpful if hon. Members who are now about to be called behaved as though there were one.

George Howarth: I am grateful for that helpful advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and as you know, I always try to follow advice from the Chair. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). He presented his argument in a characteristically thoughtful and good-natured way, but to my mounting horror I found that I agreed with one of his points. I am beginning to assess whether to think through my arguments further.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice—or, as he prefers to be known, Lord High Chancellor—delivered a spirited rendition of the great achievements of the past 10 years. Since he has already done that I will take them as read and not repeat them. Despite all the achievements that he referred to, however, crime, antisocial behaviour and the fear of crime still have a terrible effect on many of our communities, and disproportionately so on the most vulnerable.
	We need to place more emphasis on two or three key areas. We need to consider increasing the number of offences that are brought to justice—in other words, to do something about the offences that are committed, but whose perpetrators never end up inside a courtroom, for one reason or another. We need to look at reducing offending, as several hon. Members have already said, and we need to continue the search for better ways of tackling antisocial behaviour.
	Just stating those aims does not result in any change. They cover difficult and challenging areas, but I welcome the fact that the Government are rightly addressing them; my right hon. Friend emphasised all three of them in his speech, albeit in perhaps slightly different terms. If we are to make real progress, it is essential that we focus our interventions on what has been shown to be most effective—this is where I agree with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. Basically, that means using interventions that have a strong evidence base. It also means talking to offenders, who have direct experience of the criminal justice system.
	For a period, I served under my right hon. Friend—perhaps in an undistinguished way—as a junior Minister in the Home Office. I learnt a great deal from talking to young people, mostly men, in young offender institutions. Surprisingly perhaps, they are quite honest. They will talk about things—what they have been involved in, their family background and so on—that they would not be so frank about in other walks of life. There is a great deal to be learnt from that. We can also learn a great deal from their experience. One of the conclusions that I reached was that they had spent far too long in an offending career before anyone even bothered to bring them into a courtroom. We should also be open to adapting the techniques pioneered in other countries to the circumstances that we find in Britain, and to measuring the effectiveness of such experiments against existing practice.
	Much attention has been paid to offenders once they get into the criminal justice system—that is what today's debate is about—and many commentators have observed that the system struggles because it is attempting to address wider social problems that are beyond the remit of the prison service. This means that we need to make earlier interventions to address problematic behaviour before it reaches the criminal justice system. Where such interventions work, there are obvious benefits. They reduce the incidence of antisocial behaviour, and there is less pressure on custodial sentences. A recent report from the King's college centre for crime and justice studies stated that
	"a growing number of studies show that extended time spent in the company of other problematic young people has a negative influence on an individual's development and their likelihood of staying out of trouble".
	True though that might be, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that custodial sentences are still a useful and necessary option. At the very least, those in custody are not at liberty to continue offending.
	So what early interventions should we explore? We know that many young offenders have more unstable lives, and that as they get beyond school age they are more likely to be unemployed and benefit dependent in one way or another. We should consider giving greater access to facilities that help to tackle this as early as possible. Sure Start schemes, for example, start at the very beginning of childhood to give people a better start in life. In Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands, there are so-called large schools, in which a range of services for young people and their carers are available. We need to look more closely at such schemes and initiatives.
	There are also examples of successful initiatives that introduce more structure into previously chaotic lives. One good example is the advanced skills academy in Liverpool, a military-style project run by ex-military personnel. The academy is designed for young people who are either excluded from school or unlikely to benefit from a conventional education. It offers a structured day and includes activities such as army drill and fitness sessions. It is a relatively new project, and having visited it, I believe that it is a good way to give disaffected young people pride in themselves and to put some structure into their lives.
	On a national scale, Skill Force, which was established by the MOD, does a similar job. The Skill Force project that operates in All Saints school in my constituency offers young people positive role models from a military background. The young people find it easy to trust and respect those role models, and that can mean a great deal to otherwise alienated young people. I am working with Lieutenant-Colonel Tony Hollingsworth of the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment and the local education authority in Knowsley to adapt these military approaches as part of the package available for 14 to 19-year-olds. I should add that, if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice has a spare £50,000 in his budget, this project would be able to make good use of it. I hope to have an opportunity to talk to him about that.

Jack Straw: I am very interested in that project. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) tells me that a similar project in Preston is having similar success. I can make no promises about a spare £50,000—we do not have a spare £50,000—but I will look carefully at any proposition that my right hon. Friend puts forward and do my best to be helpful.

George Howarth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend.
	A number of the available interventions offer great benefits. There are many different people with a lot of complex needs, and if we can tailor a range of options and interventions to suit all those different needs, we will have a greater chance of success. As I mentioned earlier, it is essential that we ascertain how effective these interventions are, regardless of the point at which they take place in an offender's career. We need to be able to measure their effectiveness, and to conduct studies of how one intervention compares with another. I believe that there is a lot to be gained from that kind of study.
	Time prevents me from saying much more on this subject, but I believe that the reason we have a problem with the number of people in prison today, the number of places available and the costs involved is that we do not pay enough attention at an early stage to how patterns of offending can be prevented before they even start. The kind of interventions that I have described offer some ways forward, but there are many other ideas that are worthy of consideration. I hope that my right hon. Friend will listen hard to the large number of people who have ideas on this subject.

David Davies: When we have a debate about the NHS, mention is always made of the hard work of nurses. When we debate law and order, mention is usually made of the work of police officers. When we are discussing defence, people always talk about the bravery of our armed forces, and quite rightly so. It is interesting, however, that when we talk about prisons, we never seem to remember the important work done by prison officers. They carry out their work often at great risk to themselves. I believe that seven prison officers are assaulted every day, and those are not minor assaults but serious ones. I hope that the Lord Chancellor will mention those people when he sums up later.

Jack Straw: rose—

David Davies: The right hon. Gentleman was not that generous in giving way to me earlier, if I dare say that to a man held in such esteem. May I just say this to him? Prison officers are not allowed to go on strike at the moment, and I believe that that is right. However, if we are going to prevent them from striking by using the full might of the law, we must recognise their contribution, through financial means. I hope that he will listen, as I do, to Colin Moses, a man whose political views are very far from my own but who exudes a great deal of common sense.

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I apologise for the fact that I was not able to give way to him earlier. I am usually pretty accommodating. May I also say that that was an omission from my speech, and I am grateful to be able to add to the record my tribute to prison officers, to probation officers and to the civilian staff in prisons?

David Davies: I thank the right hon. Gentleman.
	The present system of sentencing is an absolute shambles. About the only subject on which I agreed with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) was the need for transparency in sentencing. There has been talk today of letting prisoners out of jail 18 days early, but the reality is that virtually all prisoners are let out early, usually months or even years before the sentence that they have been given by a judge has been completed. Someone sentenced to one year in prison is often out on a tag after only three months. A two-year sentence will often mean just seven and a half months in prison, and a four-year sentence, which is usually handed out for serious crimes such as armed robbery or even rape, will often result in the offender spending only one year and seven and a half months or so in prison.
	As for life sentences, the term is a joke. Some research that I did last year showed that, as of April 2006, more than 50 people who had been sentenced to life imprisonment since 2000 had already been let out, including a rapist who had been let out after just under a year. Our sentencing structure is a complete and utter disgrace. It is nothing more than a confidence trick designed to make the public think that they are a whole lot safer than they are, and that sentences are a lot longer than they are.
	I listened with some interest to the Lord Chancellor earlier. It appeared that he and my colleagues on the Front Bench accept the importance of prison and the need to ensure that people spend longer in prison than is currently the case. The same cannot be said for the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, however, who trotted out all the usual arguments put forward by the anti-prison lobby for allowing offenders to run amok on the streets.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about the costs involved. If I cannot say anything else in my allotted time today, I want to get this across: prison is actually very cheap indeed. He mentioned a figure of about £36,000 per annum for keeping someone in prison. The Government say that it is about £32,000 a year. In actual fact, we are not talking about category A prisoners here. Everyone—even the Liberal Democrats—accepts that category A prisoners need to be in prison, and they are the most expensive to house. What we are talking about is category B, C and D prisoners, and the actual cost of keeping them in prison is well under £30,000 a year; indeed, I believe it is about £25,000. From that gross figure to the taxpayer, however, one has to remember that three quarters of people entering a prison estate are on various forms of benefits when they do so. In order to get the true net cost to the taxpayer, we have to deduct from that £25,000 the money that they would have been receiving on benefit outside prison. That brings the net cost to the taxpayer to well under £20,000 a year.
	We then need to take into account the cost of leaving those people outside prison. The Carter report, to which the Lord Chancellor referred, makes it clear—on page 15, I believe—that most crime in this country is carried out by 100,000 people, of whom only 15,000 are in prison at any given time. It also makes it clear that if we doubled the current prison population from around 80,000 to 160,000, which I think would be the optimum amount, crime in this country would halve. The costs of crime were estimated by the Home Office in 2000 at £60 billion a year, and I have subsequently seen estimates of up to £90 billion a year. That is the total cost to society of the crimes committed in a year.
	If we doubled the prison population and spent not £3 billion but £6 billion to house 160,000 people, taking out the 85,000 recidivist offenders, we would actually make a net saving according to the Government's own figures—yes, on the Government's own figures— [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Flello) does not agree with what is in the Carter report, I will give way to him. As I was saying, the Government's own figures suggest that we could make a saving of tens of billions of pounds a year by putting persistent offenders in prison.
	Of course, when confronted with the cost argument, all these anti-prison people such as the Liberal Democrats suddenly want to change the subject and they start talking about the rehabilitation rates, as did the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. It is certainly true that about 60 per cent. of people coming out after a short prison sentence will reoffend, but what the hon. Gentleman does not know, or does not want to know, is that people serving longer prison sentences are much less likely to reoffend. For those serving one to four years, the reoffending rate is 50 per cent.; for those serving four to 10 years, the reoffending rate within two years is 33 per cent.—and that does not include lifers.
	What that demonstrates is that, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said, there is no point in putting people in prison for a short time, but there is every reason to put people in for a longer time. Many people entering the prison estate, by the time they have been assessed and then put there, face only a few months of incarceration, so prison officers make life as comfortable as they can for them and leave them to it. What we should be doing is keeping hold of people for at least one to two years and ensuring that they have proper access to the vocational qualifications and the drug-related and anger management courses that they need.
	There are two prisons in my constituency. One is a high-security sex offenders prison and the other is an open prison. By the way, a propos of nothing, it is the open prisons that cause the problems, because those are the ones that people walk out of. The sex offenders prison, despite the people who are in there, runs very good vocational courses. It can do that because the prisoners are in there for long enough. That is what we should be offering young offenders and prisoners in the B and C estates. We often cannot do that, because they are simply not in prison for long enough.
	On of the greatest problems with prison, apart from the fact that people are completely biased against it, is the fact that we do not do enough to support the prison officers who work in the prison estates. Those who come to see me often complain that although they have access to items such as the retractable baton and gas in adult prisons, they do not have access to them in some young offenders prisons.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome referred earlier to young offenders as "children"—an emotive word. Let me tell him that in my work as an occasional special constable, the first person I arrested was a 16-year-old carrying two handguns—and he had a third one back at his house. In my view, that sort of person is a very serious offender, and I hope he was locked up for it—although I never quite found out what happened. According to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, that offender is an innocent little child who should be left to his own devices. The reality is that we will never tackle crime in this country unless we recognise the importance of putting a certain number of people in prison and keeping them there for long enough to change their behaviour.
	The first thing we should do is to stop all forms of early release. That applies to the 18-day scheme in place at the moment—although frankly, it is small beer in comparison with what else is going on—or any other schemes, including tagging and automatic early release. All those need to stop, so that the public can be assured that when a judge hands out a sentence, it will be served in full.
	Next, we should ensure that all those who go to prison are kept there long enough to get some form of vocational qualification, and to get off the drugs and alcohol that have so often brought them there in the first place. We need to raise the status of prison officers and stop thinking about them in terms of the documentaries and so-called "docu-films" such as "Scum", which presented the work of prison officers wrongly. The vast majority of prison officers, like the vast majority of police officers, nurses, doctors and other public servants, do an excellent job to very high standards.
	If we did all that, we might just have a chance. Unfortunately, we are likely to carry on in the same way. We might get the prison population up to about 90,000, but the length of sentences will not be long enough to deter people from a life of crime, and we will continue to listen to the Howard League for Penal Reform, the Prison Reform Trust—and, unfortunately, the Liberal Democrats, who do not seem to recognise that there are some people who are simply not fit to walk the streets of this country.

Humfrey Malins: I begin by declaring an interest as a Crown court recorder and a district judge who has to deal with some of these problems daily. The motion refers to
	"the proper treatment and rehabilitation of offenders"
	and that is the main aspect on which I want to concentrate briefly this evening. I wish to focus particularly on education, sport and drug rehabilitation for younger offenders under 21.
	I would like to start with two anecdotes. First, about eight or 10 years ago, I talked to a young offender at a Cheltenham remand institution and I asked him what he was doing in there. He told me that he was there because he had been disqualified from driving for the third time and was given a three-month sentence. I asked him about his criminal record, but there was nothing else on it. I then asked him why he got disqualified and he told me that he was driving without a licence and without insurance and they kept catching him. I asked whether he had ever had an accident and he said, "No, of course not. I am a great driver and I have never had an accident". I asked him why on earth he could not get a licence, for goodness' sake—"Because I cannot pass the theory test because I cannot read and write. That is it". That was a perfectly good young man, yet he was given a three-month sentence.
	Let us move now to the magistrates court, where I sit as a district judge, and reflect on another young man. Today he stands in the dock; yesterday he walked into a supermarket and walked out, quite unashamedly with a whole lot of razor blades, which he was going to sell to make the money to get his drugs. There he is in the dock; he looks about 60; he is shaking and scratching his arm; he can barely hold his head up. I ask him to confirm his age—20. There is another ruined life. He began life in a dysfunctional family on a bad council estate; he was on solvents at 11, cannabis at 12; he gained no qualifications, no job, nothing. He got into serious drugs and there he goes.
	It is worth talking a little about what we can do for our young offenders when they are in custody. Can we make a better fist of it? We would all agree that education is very important indeed. We know what young men are like; we were all young men. I look around the Chamber, and every colleague here this evening was once a young man—

Patrick Cormack: One still is!

Humfrey Malins: Perhaps one still is. We all know what we went through.
	I acquired some statistics recently and they trouble me. I asked the Government—I do not blame any particular Government as Governments of all persuasions share this problem—about the average hours during week days spent in cells by young offenders at young offenders institutions. In other words, how long were these people under 21 locked up in their cells? At Deerbolt, 17 hours; Reading, 17.1 hours; Aylesbury, 16 hours; Brinsford, 16 hours. What the hell is going on? Forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What is going on when we lock our young people up for 16 or 17 hours a day. The average across all young offender institutions is 15 hours a day locked up. We are not talking about an old lag of 50 or 60. We are talking about a young man of 18 or 19, locked up for 15 hours a day on average. That is not good enough.
	What are we doing about educating our young men in these establishments? Going back to my man who could not pass his driving test because he could not pass the theory test, why are we not making him read and write? Why are we not giving him some hope when he comes out? I checked a year or so ago the average number of hours spent per week on education by young men in each of our young offender institutions. In Glen Parva, it was 6.4 hours per week. What is going on? In Portland it was 7.4 hours per week, in Reading eight hours per week, and in Rochester nine hours per week. Nine, eight, seven or six hours a week is just not good enough. It is time that we realised that in the House.

David Davies: My hon. Friend makes an important and powerful point, but are those figures so low because those offenders will not go out and access the facilities available to them, or is that all that is on offer?

Humfrey Malins: I do not know the answer to that. I just point out the fact that it is a national disgrace. I suspect that some facilities are not taken up, but it is nevertheless a national disgrace.
	Thinking of myself as a young man, I checked how many hours a week are spent on sport—team sport, physical sport, something to get the energy levels going, something that binds people together, gives them standards of discipline and behaving properly. It is absolutely laughable how much time is spent on sport: one hour, two hours, a bit of PE here and there. There is no sign of team sports such as rugby and football. We need to focus on that.

Nick Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way when he is pressed for time. I could not agree more with the emphasis that he is placing on such activities. Does he share my complete bemusement as to why, given the importance of that agenda, the Government have dropped purposeful activity of a modest 24 hours a week in prison as a key performance indicator, a target that was met only once in eight years?

Humfrey Malins: I agree. It is such a shame.
	There we are: those people are locked up for most of the day, with virtually no sport, and very little education. It is a miracle that not everyone who comes out reoffends the next day and reoffends more. Lest I be thought to be a softie, I am not a softie because I can pass a tough sentence when I need to, but I am trying to be constructive, too.
	As for drugs, that is a subject worth days of debate. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and I have debated those issues before. He was right: drugs are available in many of these young offender institutions. Youngsters go in and they cannot help themselves. That young defendant at the south London court was out of control with drugs. It is cheaper to put him through a drug residential rehabilitation centre than it is to lock him away for three months or six months, saying "See how it goes." I will tell hon. Members how it goes: it goes very badly. We have to have some cross-party thinking—some thinking from hon. Members on both sides of the House—about what we can do constructively for all our prisoners, not just our young offenders. The record of the past 10, 20 or 30 years is not one of which we can be proud.

Nick Hurd: I am conscious of the fact that Front Benchers wish to speak. I wish to add one small point to the debate and to take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert). He pointed out that 50 per cent. of crime comes from reoffending. The evidence shows clearly that some basic things need to be provided to support people to turn away from that path. One is some accommodation to go to; another is some family support to tap into; and the third is a job and some prospect of meaningful employment.
	I recommend to the Minister that he takes some time to look at an initiative in my constituency introduced by Blue Sky. That initiative was set up by Mick May in partnership with Groundwork locally and it is supported by Hillingdon council. It is the only company in the country that insists on someone having a criminal record before entering its employment. It employs ex-cons basically to clean up and to green Hillingdon and to look after the parks. They are highly visible, making a contribution to the community. If the Minister were to talk to the people on that scheme, he would recognise how crucial to their lives those six months at Blue Sky are. One young man travels two hours a day to take part because he sees it as his lifeline at that crucial moment after he exited prison.
	Innovative voluntary projects such as that are making a huge difference, but the Government and the Prison Service, and the culture of "Not invented here" seem to be so resistant. We have to open our minds.

Edward Garnier: I thank my hon. Friends and other right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. I think that the Secretary of State would agree that that was probably not the best of his speeches, but I do not want to abuse him too much in his absence. He has apologised for the fact that he cannot be here for the winding-up speeches because he has to give evidence to the Select Committee that is chaired by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).
	Like my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), I want to confess to being a Crown court recorder and to having to deal with the sort of feeble people who appear before the courts week in, week out—feeble intellectually, socially and in terms of mental and physical health—on that great conveyor belt of people who come before district judges, recorders and pretty well every other member of the judiciary who have to deal with criminal defendants in that jurisdiction. What both my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd), who spoke cogently, if briefly, have said is key. We will never reduce reoffending until we get a better product, if I can use that hideous expression, coming out of our custodial establishments, be they young offender institutions, or adult prisons, and until we get people who are off drugs, can read, can write, are physically healthy and motivated, so that they can lead sensible and constructive lives.
	The Conservative party's review of this area of debate will be led by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert). One of the many things that it will think hard about is incarceration because that is an important and central part of any criminal justice policy. I hope that that pleases my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies). It will also ensure that we do not simply incarcerate, but do something with the people whom we incarcerate when they are in prisons, young offender institutions or secure training units, so that when they come out—most people who are sent into custody are released at some stage; only about 1 or 2 per cent. of those who are sent into custody never come out again—they can go to the jobcentre, read what is on offer and get a job, and they can stagger out into the streets healthy rather than looking for the next fix.
	At the moment, other than those people who are released on ECL, as it is called nowadays, I think that most prisoners get demob money of about £45 to £50. Far too many of them go straight to the nearest railway cutting and buy the next fix, and around they go again. It will not do. It is a waste of everyone's money. It is not an absence of Conservative thinking to say, "Let us think rather more carefully about what we do in prison with prisoners, just as we want to think about what we do outside prison to prevent offending and reoffending."

Patrick Cormack: I will be brief. I have been much impressed by the achievements of some of the community restorative justice schemes in Northern Ireland. Is that something that we could have a look at?

Edward Garnier: Yes. The Secretary of State thought it amusing to chide me for having admitted to Mary Ann Sieghart in an article that she wrote in  The Times nearly 18 months ago, when I was appointed by the Leader of the Opposition to shadow the prisons portfolio, that I was on a voyage of discovery. The one thing about being on a voyage of discovery is that one looks, learns and sees and one gains from the experience of looking and learning. Rather than arrogantly saying that we know everything, those of us on a voyage of discovery allow ourselves to be influenced by the people we have met and by what we have seen on that voyage. Part of that voyage of discovery has taken me to 25 custodial institutions, adult prisons and young offender institutions in England and Wales. That is probably rather more—I am subject to correction—than the present Lord Chancellor visited when he was Home Secretary and started the fiasco that we are now having to sort out. It is true that the Minister has already been to one or two prisons.  [Interruption.] He says that he has been to eight in eight weeks; that is very good, but he ought to go to many more to see the evidence of the failure of his Government's policies, and they should then come up with some better ones.
	I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth that we tend to forget about the prison officers who have to work and live in very difficult circumstances day in and day out. Let me give an example: 18 months ago a wing of Norwich prison had to be decanted because inmates were living in their own sewage and officers were having to work in it. That is a disgusting state of affairs, and it was presided over by this Government thanks to their overcrowding policy. Because of overcrowding and the Government's incompetent management of our prison system, that disgusting wing has had to be refilled with prisoners and officers. I have some sympathy for the prisoners, who have been sent to prison because of their misdemeanours, but I have a huge amount of sympathy for the prison officers working in both private and public prisons who have to endure such unattractive circumstances in their working lives.
	The right hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) was right to stress the importance of early intervention. Many of the problems we face, such as the current overcrowding in our prison estate, arise because people are allowed to slip through the net at far too young an age. That might have happened because of family breakdown, drugs or drink; but whatever the cause is, the Government have failed to get a grip on it, and I encourage them to follow the right hon. Gentleman's advice on intervention.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) mentioned restorative justice. It is hugely valuable, but only in a limited number of cases; it works well only where there is the right defendant and the right victim and both of them agree that it is the right process to go through. If it does not work well, it goes badly wrong, but I have sometimes seen it work extremely well—in Wandsworth and in Cardiff, for instance—and it is of huge value to the criminal justice system.
	Sadly, I have little time in which to deliver what should be a half-hour speech, but I shall endeavour to persuade the Government that our motion is worthy of support. On 12 July, the new Secretary of State for Justice unburdened himself to the Murdoch press by calling for a national debate on the prison overcrowding crisis. He said that he wanted to send fewer people to prison. Some of us will remember the Secretary of State as the last Home Secretary but three and the man who was in charge of prisons and criminal justice policy from 1997 to 2001—half the period that this Government have been in office—but anyone would think from what he said that he considers the mess that he and his colleagues have created to be a totally surprising state of affairs.
	The Government's policy then and now is to be seen as being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. In order to demonstrate that, they have created 3,000 additional criminal offences, introduced 65 criminal justice statutes and decreed that more people should be sent to prison, and for longer. However, they have failed to understand that that will result in the prisons filling up. If they had planned sensibly, they would have ensured that there was sufficient capacity in the prisons to accommodate the additional people being sent there as a result of public policy.
	Overcrowded prisons are the rock on which this Government's criminal justice policy has foundered. If we have overcrowded prisons, we can achieve nothing with prisoners. If we can achieve nothing with prisoners because the prison estate is overcrowded, we will not reduce reoffending but we will increase the danger to the public. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth wants to reduce reoffending to protect the public—our electors and taxpayers. The Government must get their head around the simple equation that overcrowding equals sclerosis and ineffective rehabilitation of offenders. This is not about being soft; it is about being competent—it is about using money wisely, and ensuring that the citizens of our country can, as my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs said, walk out of their houses or come home from their jobs without being hit on the head by some demented drug addict who wants their purse or wallet.
	As has been said in the debate, a huge proportion of those who commit crimes are under the influence of drugs. In the main, it is addicts who commit crimes, not criminals who become drug addicts. What my hon. Friend the Member for Woking said on this matter was right: until the Government deal with that fact, they will be putting the cart before the horse.
	The Government make a further mistake. They assume that when they say that they have built 20,000 new prison places since 1997, the public believe that it is true. That is not true. They have increased the number of prisoners by more than 20,000, and they have sought to reduce that in a panic-driven way through the ECL scheme, which will over the course of the next year lead to an increase of 25,000 in the number of people being pushed out of prison early and produce a net reduction in the prison population of only 1,250.
	Mary Riddell noted this weekend in  The Observer that despite ECL, the prison population would increase by 500 a week. If that is competent management of our prison system, I am a banana—and I am not talking about Robert Peel. The Government have not produced 20,000 additional spaces, as they claim. As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs said, they have merely doubled-up single cells, trebled-up double cells and created a continuing and growing mess. It is a mess of their own making, and I wish I had longer to speak on it. It is not only a national disgrace, but criminally reckless.

David Hanson: I thank Members for the tone in which they have conducted the debate.
	The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) has just admitted that he might be a banana. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke (Dan Norris) will back me up in that there are certainly some banana splits on the Opposition Benches today as there is a difference in policy approach between the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) and other Opposition Members who have made different points.
	I do not duck the fact that there are serious issues that need to be tackled in respect of the prison population, or that we face challenges in preventing reoffending and ensuring that our citizens get what they deserve: a crime-free society in which they can live safely in their homes and communities. I could go on about the fact that there is 35 per cent. less crime in our society now than there was when the Conservative party was in office, but that would not be a constructive way to approach the debate.
	There is common ground on some of the challenges we face. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member for Woking agree that we need to slow the growth in the prison population, and that is clearly true. There are 79,500 people in prison, and according to Government forecasts—which are due to be revised in October—that figure might rise to between 102,000 and 104,000 by 2012. We have planned some 9,500 new prison places—real ones—and for new prisons, extensions to prisons and units to be built over the next five years, but it is clear that a gap remains between the number of new places and the forecasted rise in the prison population. We have two options. As the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) said, we can raise even further the number of prison places. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) would happily support that, and I suspect that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) would also support it. However, I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman or the hon. Member for Woking would support that principle.
	We need to look at how we manage prison population issues for the future. We are clear that we need to build extra prison places to meet present need, but we also need—as I have said to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome in correspondence and discussions on the matter—to try to reduce the growth in the prison population.
	There is further common ground on the need for early intervention. My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) made a thoughtful speech on that point, as did the hon. Member for Woking. We need to reduce reoffending and make prisons a place where learned skills and employability—not only in prison, but on the outside—become a reality. The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) touched on that issue and I concur with the points that he made.
	Whatever we do, we need to ensure that we reduce crime, and that is also common ground. Every drop in crime means fewer of my constituents—and every other hon. Member's constituents—suffering the burden of crime. We need to tackle the issue of clarity in sentencing and we need to consider the impact of sentencing policy on the prison population.
	It has not been mentioned today, but we need to consider penal policy as it affects women. I will shortly consider the report by Baroness Corston, and I will give a response to it in the autumn. I will consider how we can reduce the number of women in prison, because a prison sentence affects not only the person imprisoned, but the families, the community and the people with whom they live, work and share lives, and it is clear that there are too many women in prison at present.
	We are agreed that we need to reduce reoffending, protect the public and plan for the future. If I may make a minor political point, it has been evident today that there is a difference of approach between the hon. Member for Monmouth, who, I remind the House, urged that 160,000 people should be put in prison, at a cost that even the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) would not—

David Davies: Perhaps the Minister did not hear the argument. Page 15 of the Carter report clearly states that if one put in prison the 85,000 recidivist offenders who are out on the streets, the crime rate would halve. If the crime rate halved, the net saving to the state would be between £30 billion and £45 billion a year. Therefore, building more prisons is one of the best bargains that the taxpayer could have.

David Hanson: I do not know which Carter report the hon. Gentleman is reading, but the Carter report to which I refer has not yet been written or published by Lord Carter. We have given him terms of reference, which he is considering, but the report will be brought back to the House and Ministers in the autumn.
	The Government have a clear strategy to build more prison places, to prevent reoffending, to make community sentences a reality, and to consider how we tackle the problems of drugs, housing and employability both outside and inside prison. However, with due respect to Conservative Members, there appears to be a clear split between those, such as the hon. and learned Gentleman, who wish to see a focus on drug treatment, employability and the causes of crime, including improvements in literacy and housing provision, and those such as the hon. Gentleman, who said today that he wants to double the prison population, and the right hon. Gentleman, who wants to see more prisons built, whatever it takes. But the hon. Member for Tatton is not willing to commit resources even to the 9,500 places that I have promised.

Edward Garnier: I know that the Minister is in full flow, but I do not wish him to continue to mislead himself, because it is embarrassing for him. The split that he is trying to create will be no truer simply because he repeats a canard. There is no split between Conservative Front Benchers about the need to have capacity into which to put the prisoners whom his Government will insist on putting into prison in industrial numbers. If one cannot produce the capacity, one cannot run a proper prison system.

David Hanson: I will reflect on what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said about there being no splits between Conservative Front Benchers. I beg to differ, but I will not detain the House with the arguments today. I shall simply point out that the hon. Member for Tatton has not committed to a single penny of resources to meet the extra prison building programme or for the ambitious targets that the hon. and learned Gentleman sets for preventing reoffending. That is an issue that he needs to address, because we will return to it before the election in terms of resources to meet the needs of our prison population.
	Hon. Members will be aware that Lord Carter has established clear terms of reference for the review of prisons and will report before the end of this year. We are considering value for money in the prison system, the efficiency of public sector prisons, the potential for further cost renewal of the prison estate, the impact of recommendations on the prison estate in terms of criminal justice policy, and the sentencing framework.
	We need to undertake work on the prevention of reoffending. The figures for the past year show that more than 19,800 offenders have successfully completed offending programmes and 55,500 offenders have completed unpaid work. Many offenders have started and completed drug rehabilitation requirements, with more than 14,000 starts and 6,000 completions last year. The highest rates ever of enforcement have also been reached.
	I am happy to look at what we do on reoffending. Indeed, the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood mentioned the Blue Sky project. I will happily come and see that project in his constituency, because we need to learn lessons about what works. We have a target of a 5 per cent. reduction in reoffending and the Labour Government have exceeded that target by 6.9 per cent. We will increase the target to 10 per cent. in the very near future. We need to do more, but—I repeat—that requires resources, which my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Prime Minister and I are willing to commit, but which the Opposition are not willing to commit.
	Other valid and real issues were raised in the debate, including early intervention, and the effect of imprisonment for public protection sentences on the prison population. There are 2,500 IPP prisoners and the number is rising. We are reviewing that issue and we need to learn the lessons of how to manage that population in the prison system in a positive way. The issue of foreign national prisoners has been mentioned. There are 8,000 foreign national prisoners in jails in England and Wales, and we need to look at what we do with the top five countries represented to try to make some progress on those issues.
	The issue of mental health was raised by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, and we need to look at that. It also requires resources and working with the NHS to tackle problems in the community and in prison. I am proud of the fact that the Prison Service and the police are co-operating to improve facilities in hospital and drug treatment, alcohol treatment and drug treatment orders.
	We also need to consider the black and ethnic minority prison population, which is disproportionately high. We need to consider the issue of recalls to prison, with more than 5,000 prisoners being recalled. What can we do to ensure that recalled individuals are identified earlier and that intervention occurs to prevent that recall? We need to consider the issues of remand in prison and bail hostels. We are putting in place 1,000 new bail hostel places over the next six months at a significant cost to the taxpayer—money that the Conservative party has, in the past, opposed. We also need to consider sentencing policy and several other issues.
	Restorative justice was mentioned by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack). As a Northern Ireland Minister, I had a great deal to do with restorative justice schemes. They have a role and we need to evaluate them. Evaluations in England and Wales are ongoing, but there is potential to bring offenders—young and old—face to face with the consequences of their crime and we should look at how we can do that locally.
	There is much common ground between the Opposition and the Government. Where we differ is in the fact that the Government are willing to put in resources, build prison places, prevent reoffending and strengthen community sentences—to make a real difference with resources and will. We have them; the Conservative party does not.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 156, Noes 355.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Question, That the proposed words be there added,  put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
	 The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 175.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker  forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House welcomes the record of the Government which has since 1997 cut crime, reformed the penal system, invested in record prison places, created a legislative framework which provides tough and effective sentences, introduced risk assessment and offender management systems, introduced and seen ever increasing numbers of offenders complete accredited programmes, enabled record numbers of offenders to pay back to the community through unpaid work, ensured that offenders in the community who pose a risk to the public are recalled to custody, radically reformed the youth justice system and brought the prison and probation services together under the National Offender Management Service with a renewed focus on protecting the public and reducing re-offending.

Global Poverty

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The next motion is on global poverty. I must advise the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment that stands in the name of the Prime Minister and that there will be a 10-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches in the debate.

Oliver Letwin: I beg to move,
	That this House reaffirms the cross-party commitment to increase the aid budget to 0.7 per cent. of gross national income by 2013; recognises the ability of effectively organised aid to contribute to sustainable economic development in low income countries; acknowledges the need to avoid imposing over-prescriptive conditions on aid; supports the wider use of tracking surveys and independent accounting as well as increased independent scrutiny of the United Kingdom's aid budget to make the ultimate destination of aid payments more transparent; welcomes the suggestion that donors should work together in partnership trusts to ensure coordination of bilateral aid budgets in each recipient country; and urges the Government to work towards the unilateral removal by the EU of trade barriers against low income countries.
	This topic is, by common consent, probably the most important one that the world currently faces. Probably the worst feature of our world is that so many people live in dire poverty. That is a matter of consensus among not just ourselves and Government Members, but Liberal Members and, indeed, I am glad to say, the whole political establishment in Britain, but I wonder whether it is as keenly felt by all our fellow citizens as it might be.
	I certainly admit that, over a number of years, the Conservative party, although it shared the consensus on spending, for example, and has done for many years in this field, did not pay the subject the attention it was due. One of the very first things that happened when my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) became leader of the party is that we asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who is in his place, to chair a policy review group to look into how we might propose sensible, robust and effective policies to improve Britain's performance in this area.

Stephen Hesford: The right hon. Gentleman mentions the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). Does he agree with me and the  Daily Mail that the right hon. Member for Witney would be better placed in his own constituency, looking after the flood victims, rather than chasing a photo opportunity in Rwanda?

Oliver Letwin: I hope that, as we proceed with what I, at least, intend to be a serious debate on the most pressing problem of the world, we will not descend to partisan repartee. In fact, over the years, it will be seen that the commitment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney to this subject and his willingness to continue with his engagement, notwithstanding the considerable political pressure to the contrary, is a sign of the same kind of commitment that is displayed by the fact that the group chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden has now produced what is, by common consent of those who are expert in the field, a very serious piece of work. Today we met a large number of representatives of the non-governmental organisations, who had many good and useful things to say in support of much of what is in the report. I hope that the debate will be the beginning of a prolonged national discussion of the propositions in the report. We certainly intend that discussion to inform our policy as it emerges.
	The report does much more than merely commit to a seriousness in relation to the relief of global poverty. It refocuses the discussion of the relief of global poverty. In particular, it offers a clear view of what the route out of global poverty is and has to be. In a way, what it says on that ought to have been obvious, but, over the past 20 or 30 years—this is not a partisan point; it is a point about the trend of British government over many years—it has not been followed up as if it were obvious. The report says that the way out of poverty is economic development and growth. It points out that our policies as a country have been, to a degree, deficient, in that we have failed to do as much as we could have done for growth in low-income countries.
	In particular, the report points to two parts of our policy that have been, to a degree, deficient: first, our policy on trade and, secondly, our policy on aid. The report makes a bold proposition about trade, which it describes under the heading of a "real trade campaign". It proposes that Britain and our partners in the European Union should join together and seek to achieve a unilateral disarmament in our barriers against trade from low-income countries. I stress the word "unilateral". The report does not propose that we should merely demand a reciprocal reduction in barriers on the part of low-income countries. On the contrary, it proposes that we should tear down the barriers and offer what is built on the everything-but-arms basis. But, more than that, it involves a significant change in the rules of origin. It proposes that that should be offered to low-income countries on a unilateral basis, from the European Union. That is a major potential step forward in the thinking about how we can open ourselves up to trade that may benefit us, but, much more importantly, offers the prospect of growth and economic development in parts of the world that do not have it in sufficient quantities.
	It is of course critical that the report deals not just with unilaterally tearing down barriers against trade from low-income countries, but with the need to encourage and foster south-south trade—trade between low-income countries. It makes a number of proposals about how that too can be encouraged. Nor is it the case that the report deals merely with tearing down barriers to trade. It also makes it clear that aid itself needs to be oriented more firmly towards the promotion of trade. I will come on to that as I describe the report's propositions on aid. This is an important step forward in thinking about trade, and the ability of the UK and our partner countries to promote trade from low-income countries.
	The report is equally committed to improvements in our aid programme. I stress that the report does not suggest that our aid programme is a disaster or that the Department for International Development does nothing right. As the Secretary of State will see if he chooses to read the report at some stage, it provides a fair-minded and balanced analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the way in which DFID has been going about its business.
	The report suggests that our aid programme could be improved significantly if various things happened. First, our aid programme could be more devoted to economic development than has recently become fashionable. The report notes that, a couple of decades ago, aid for economic development began to acquire a bad name—partly because of tied aid, which by common consent we now do not believe in, and partly because of large-scale projects that did not work out right. The Secretary of State is nodding his head, but if he thinks that it was merely one set of Governments that failed in those respects, rather than many, he is wrong. It was a common failing, both across different Administrations in the UK and across other Administrations in other countries. The report argues that, as a result of all that, aid aimed at economic development acquired an unduly bad name.
	Secondly, the report notes that not only did aid have attached to it for a considerable period the wrong conditionality of being tied to our exports, but, following that period, it had attached to it—and still has attached to it—what the report regards as an excessively prescriptive view of how the aid is to be used. The report argues for a different form of conditionality. It argues that aid can do serious things—if it is the right kind of aid, rightly delivered—for the development of agriculture and of the economy as a whole in low-income countries. It argues that microfinance institutions and demand-led funding can make a significant difference to the development of those countries.
	The report argues that the conditionality that needs to apply is transparency. It argues for the much wider use of expenditure tracking surveys, independent accounting and efforts to make sure that outcomes match inputs. The report argues that DFID and Britain would be better served if there were an independent evaluation group, reporting to a Select Committee and looking into the outcomes achieved by DFID. The report notes that the public service agreements and the objectives of DFID are wide in nature and not sufficiently related to the outcomes achieved by aid.

Ann McKechin: The right hon. Gentleman is certainly presenting an interesting argument. Given the fact that a great deal of British aid is spent through multilateral institutions such as the World Bank and the development banks, how does he propose that we would track the outcomes and hold those organisations properly to account?

Oliver Letwin: The hon. Lady asks an interesting question. The report does offer a route to achieving that. The route has another advantage as well. The report suggests that—this is something of which I have had a good deal of personal experience in the various African countries in which I have worked—the often fragile governmental organisations in low-income countries suffer from an excess of bureaucratic requirements from a range of well-meaning donor countries and well-meaning multilateral donors. It points to the extent to which the bureaucracies in those countries can be forced to complete a huge number of forms and responses for those many donors.
	As a way of dealing with that—this would also do what the hon. Lady and I both seek—the report suggests the formation of what it calls partnership trusts. They would be bodies in the recipient countries that would be co-operatives, or partnerships, involving a range of donor countries with aid programmes in those countries, and multilateral institutions. On their boards would also sit, perhaps as observing rather than voting members, various local non-governmental organisations, governmental observers and so forth. In that way, the aid programmes from many different sources could be co-ordinated more efficiently and be made subject more effectively to expenditure tracking and independent accounting.
	The report proposes that the process that I have described would enable one to envisage encouraging the media and other organisations of civil society in recipient countries to invigilate the effectiveness with which the aid reaches the schools, hospitals, farms and infrastructure projects to which it was directed. It argues that that is likely to provide a more sustainable basis for checks and balances against corruption and poor governance than present arrangements.

Malcolm Bruce: The right hon. Gentleman is making an interesting case and I welcome the contribution to the debate on global poverty. Does he accept that building up the capacity of the local finance ministry is the ultimate priority for many developing countries? Is there not a danger that setting up a parallel structure would put pressure and strain on their resources that they could not sustain? To be fair to the Department for International Development, one of the benefits of budget support is that the Department has to work with the local finance ministry to deliver that accountability. Setting up a parallel structure poses risks, whereas establishing a successful finance ministry would be a good start.

Oliver Letwin: I wholly agree with the right hon. Gentleman, as I think would my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), the shadow Secretary of State. Building up the capacity of finance ministries is a crucial component, and the report makes that very point. That is why it favours direct budgetary support, rather than highly prescriptive aid on one side. Indeed, it goes further, arguing that support for health programmes would be better achieved by giving direct budgetary support that is then passed on to the health system as a whole than by minutely targeting specific health initiatives that turn out not to have the infrastructure and support that is needed to maintain them.
	Neither I nor the report suggests that a parallel structure that undercuts a recipient country's finance ministry be established. On the contrary: the report suggests setting up a partnership trust of donors whose board could discuss its programmes with the local finance ministry, and that that could enable the finance ministry to do better at finding ways to render transparent how the money is used. It could also enable civil society in the recipient country to invigilate the finance ministry. The idea is to create a sustainable process in that country, and not impose a parallel process from outside.

William Cash: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is familiar with my International Development (Anti-Corruption Audit) Bill, which I introduced early last year. In it, I suggested a mechanism by which, in countries where it was transparent that corruption was rife, the finance ministries and public accounts committees could have an independent, external audit carried out by Parliaments and international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Does he think that that proposal should be pursued, as a way of making sure that children no longer die at the present rate? For example, poor water and sanitation mean that one child dies every 15 seconds. I know that the report is excellent, but we must not underestimate the importance of external audit when the countries concerned are simply not listening to what we say.

Oliver Letwin: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden will succeed in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and be able to speak for himself. However, I think that I can say on his behalf that he was indeed aware of my hon. Friend's contribution, as was I. If the proposed measures are to be effective, independent audit will be an important component. In the report, there is considerable discussion of the need for independent audit, although it suggests that it should be conducted under the local finance ministry and not be imposed from outside.
	However, I can go further. The report also makes immensely important suggestions about the need for a new corruption Act in the UK., and about the need to do better at tracking our unwitting participation in corruption abroad as a result, for example, of activities that may be going on in the financial centre that is London.
	I know that many colleagues want to speak, so I shall summarise my argument. The report is not conceived in a partisan spirit. It is the product of an immense amount of consultation and work—with NGOs, recipient country Governments, and experts from across the world. It has a remorselessly growth-oriented focus, and argues that both trade and aid can make colossal contributions to promoting growth in low-income countries. It argues for a radical proposal across the EU to remove barriers to trade, and for aid that is provided on a basis that is less prescriptive but more transparent. It believes that such aid is more likely to be effective and better directed at promoting the growth permitted by the removal of trade barriers.
	I believe that the report will form the basis of a considerable, ongoing discussion. I hope so, as that may assist the Government—and the Opposition, as we formulate our policy responses in this critical area.
	Before I close, I want to say one other thing. I welcome the Liberal Democrat amendment, although I know that Mr. Speaker did not select it for debate. If Liberal Democrat colleagues read the relevant sections of the report, they will find them penetrated throughout by a recognition of the critical significance of adaptation to climate change in low-income countries, and the necessity to pass the aid programme through what it calls the "filter" of its effects on climate change.

Hugh Bayley: On several occasions, the right hon. Gentleman has said that there is growing basis of cross-party support in this area of policy, and I am very pleased by what is a very welcome change. However, does he see anything in the Government amendment to the Opposition motion with which he disagrees? Is the level of cross-party support such that there is no need to divide the House at the end of the debate?

Oliver Letwin: I would have welcomed it if the Government had not tabled an amendment, although I did not expect that. I am not sure that our motion contains anything with which the Government particularly disagree. The Government amendment essentially agrees with much of the substance of the motion, but adds congratulations, on a considerable scale, to the Government. It is, so to speak, a "Toad of Toad Hall" amendment: there is nothing amiss with that and I can quite understand the principle but, if the hon. Gentleman supposes that we would vote for a mass of unnecessary congratulation, he is stretching my impartiality and non-partisan nature a mite too far.

Douglas Alexander: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"acknowledges the Government's global leadership on international development; welcomes the Government's stated objective to increase the aid budget to 0.7 per cent. of gross national income by 2013; further welcomes the widespread support which this policy has secured; further acknowledges the centrality of effectively delivered aid to low income countries' sustainable economic development; welcomes the Government's untying of aid; supports the United Kingdom Government's moves to establish an independent evaluation mechanism and its increased focus on aid effectiveness, results and impact; and acknowledges that the UK Government is working at the multilateral and bilateral levels to remove the trade barriers which developing countries face and to help them take advantage of new market opportunities through the provision of aid for trade."
	Two weeks ago, the United Nations published a report showing progress towards the millennium development goals. The scale of the remaining challenge is clear: every minute, a woman dies in pregnancy or childbirth, and as we have heard, every 15 seconds a child dies because they did not have access to clean water and sanitation. Each year, malaria claims 1 million lives, tuberculosis nearly 2 million lives, and AIDS 3 million lives. It is seven years since the world pledged to "spare no effort" to free men, women and children from extreme poverty, yet only one of the eight regions of the world cited in the UN report is on track to achieve all the millennium development goals.
	However, we can—and we must—make a difference. The Department for International Development's work is rightly respected around the world. The Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said that the United Kingdom
	"offers a powerful model for development cooperation."
	The Canadian Institute of International Affairs said that the Department is
	"generally considered to be the best"—
	development agency—
	"in the world."
	The Leader of the Opposition was perhaps rather more charitable than Opposition Front Benchers have been this evening: he was willing to make the point forcefully last year that
	"We should...be proud of the Department for International Development's achievements",
	and he described it as
	"the leading national aid agency."
	Indeed, it is estimated that the Department's work lifts 3 million people out of poverty every year. I put that evidence before the House not out of complacency or false pride, but out of determination that the Department should build on its success in the years ahead to help more of the world's poor. We must do so with an informed understanding of the challenges facing us at the start of this young century—migration, climate change, conflict, and of course disease, which we have already mentioned.
	The White Paper "Eliminating world poverty: making governance work for the poor", published just over a year ago, sets out how we will tackle global poverty in a changing world—a world in which, each year, more than 190 million people leave their shores in search of a better life; in which climate change is not a theory, but a fact of life for many struggling with floods, drought and crop failures; in which scarce resources threaten to spark new conflicts; and in which disease can spread rapidly across continents.
	Later, I will talk about the contribution that the international community can make in helping the world's poorest people to tackle those challenges, but what happens within their borders is critical to their future. That is why good governance was at the heart of the White Paper. Good governance is about building effective states that are capable of providing political stability, rules and services for their citizens, that respond to what people want, and which are accountable to them. Every society will, of course, reach good governance in its own way. Our role is to support Governments, Parliaments, civil society, the media, trade unions and all the actors who will play an important role in forging that path.
	Notwithstanding the floods at home, Rwanda has been in the news, and I applaud the Leader of the Opposition's courage in spending 24 or 48 hours in that country at a difficult time for him and his party. Let us focus on that country for a moment. The United Kingdom has provided £380 million of assistance to Rwanda over the past 10 years, and has helped to implement public service and land reforms, and to ensure improvements to health and education. The result was that Rwanda's economy grew by over 10 per cent. a year for a decade. The proportion of Rwandans living on less than a dollar a day has fallen from 70 per cent. in 1994 to 57 per cent. last year.
	Even where governance standards are at their lowest, as in Zimbabwe, we will not abandon the poorest people; that would doubly punish the people in those afflicted countries. As the Government announced only last week, the Department has committed £50 million to providing seeds, fertilizers, livestock and access to HIV/AIDS care, through tried and tested partners, so that we can assist 2 million of the most vulnerable Zimbabweans.
	As well as safeguarding our aid, we must use it to fight the causes of corruption. The extractive industries transparency initiative brings together global business, Governments and non-governmental organisations to show how much money Governments receive from oil, gas and mining revenues. The Nigerian Government estimate that in one year alone that new transparency index saved $1 billion that would otherwise have been lost through corruption. That is money that can and should be spent on basic services, such as health and education services, clean drinking water and sanitation, and a safety net that people can rely on when times are hard. The White Paper committed us to increasing our spending on those public services, so that it becomes at least half of our bilateral aid budget.
	We will make more long-term commitments to help developing countries plan for not one or two years, but for a decade—commitments such as the one that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made in Mozambique last year, when he pledged that the United Kingdom would spend £8.5 billion over 10 years to get every child into school. That will mean that countries that certainly need support can build a school and know that the money will be there to maintain it, and can train teachers, knowing that they can afford to pay a salary at the end of the training.
	There has already been much discussion on the Floor of the House on growth and trade this evening, so let me turn to those issues.

William Cash: Unfortunately, when the former Prime Minister went to the G8, no progress was made on water and sanitation—issues that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. However, the former Prime Minister did write to me on 25 June, as he was leaving office, to say that the issue would be put on the agenda for next year's G8. Would the Secretary of State be good enough to confirm that that is Government policy?

Douglas Alexander: Of course I am happy to confirm that water and sanitation are continuing sources of concern to us, and I will certainly make sure that I write to the hon. Gentleman after this evening's debate about the agenda for the G8 in the years to come.
	The hon. Gentleman's observation on partnership and working collectively in the G8 brings to mind a concern regarding trade policy that I would like raise with his Front-Bench team. I applaud the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) for saying that we must work effectively to open our doors more completely, so that we allow poorer countries the opportunity to trade their way out of poverty, but surely the right hon. Gentleman accepts that if we are to exercise genuine influence in a debate on trade policy, it behoves us to work constructively and effectively with our European partners.
	Notwithstanding the fanfare of today's announcement about new campaigns, given that trade is a competence of the European Commission I struggle to understand how it assists endeavours to build a genuine coalition for fair trade within the European Union if only one party in one single country is willing to identify itself with the modern Conservative party. Surely that powerfully makes the case for the Conservative party to stay within the European People's party alliance, which allows mainstream voices in the European Union to be heard. If one limits oneself to speaking to a particular Czech nationalist party, which, as I understand it, does not even accept the existence of climate change, one's leverage and purchase in debate on trade policy will be commensurately diminished.

Russell Brown: I visited Burundi and Rwanda last month with colleagues from the all-party group on the great lakes region and genocide prevention, and the point was made time and again that the Department for International Development is doing a tremendous job in offering support. People were also very complimentary about our EU partners, and the help that they give the Department to ensure that support reaches the areas where it is most needed.

Douglas Alexander: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations, and I, too, pay tribute to the work of the all-party group. I know that my hon. Friend was in the Rwandan Parliament when a historic commitment was made to abolishing the death penalty in that country. Given its great troubles in recent decades, that was truly a historic day. He makes a point that is well taken by Members on both sides of the House: we must do more than simply send delegations to visit such countries. We must build effective partnerships that can support those countries in their journey from poverty to development. I return to the point that I made earlier: the European Union offers an extremely powerful mechanism by which we can strengthen our capacity to assist those countries by working effectively and collaboratively.

Malcolm Bruce: On exactly that point, when the Select Committee has met the European Commission, the Commission has shown a degree of common cause with the British Government. It has expressed frustration, however, that many of the other member states do not share our commitment to poverty reduction as the overriding objective of development and aid. What does the right hon. Gentleman believe he can do, on the lines that he described, to persuade countries such as France, Germany and Italy to make a stronger commitment to poverty reduction, rather than using aid to tie to their own NGOs and to their own mercantilist interests?

Douglas Alexander: That is a valid point. I draw on my own experience as the former Europe Minister during the British presidency. During that time, and immediately preceding the British presidency, in the run-up to Gleneagles, members of the Government worked very hard indeed to secure widespread support, particularly among the A10, the newer members of the European Union, who for historical reasons were not as familiar with the cause of development in Africa, in particular, as some of the older members of the European Union, to secure genuine cross-European Union support, especially to double aid to Africa.
	In many ways that seems a model of the work that we need to do. Of course we should work effectively with our European partners to secure a progressive trade policy, but I recognise that that often involves difficult conversations. I remember a particular debate in which I took part in the General Affairs Council when Peter Mandelson, the Trade Commissioner, was seeking a fresh mandate from the Council of Ministers in order to be able to negotiate on behalf of the European Union. At that meeting I was obliged to speak forcefully from the British seat against a proposal from the French Government that would have effectively bound the hands of the Trade Commissioner ahead of a critical stage in the negotiations.
	The hon. Gentleman's experience as Chair of the Select Committee and his familiarity with European issues would, I hope, convince him, as those experiences convinced me, that in order to have influence with those European partners, we need to be inside the room exerting influence, rather than choosing to be outside the room deciding to launch a campaign or to protest.
	In many poor countries, the aid about which I spoke earlier is a much needed catalyst for development, but in no country will aid be sufficient. As I am sure we all agree, economic growth is the surest path out of poverty, and trade is crucial to growth. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear his determination that the Government will
	"align aid, debt relief and trade policies to wage an unremitting battle"
	against poverty.
	Delivering the promise of the Doha round remains our priority. We remain committed to finding a multilateral solution to the challenge that we face. The UK was instrumental in the launch of the round, and has kept it at the top of the international agenda ever since. Though the difficulties are real, the potential gains for the poor from a successful conclusion to the Doha round are huge. At the same time, we must also help developing countries to improve their ability to trade effectively. The investment climate facility for Africa, launched last year with $30 million of UK funding, uses the expertise of the private sector to help Africa become a better place in which to do business. The Government have therefore pledged to spend $750 million a year on aid for trade by 2010.
	But the benefits of trade and growth for the poor can be realised only if we also tackle perhaps the greatest threat facing development, the challenge of climate change. Dealing with climate change is a clear priority for the Department for International Development. We are working across Government towards an international agreement on a cap and trade system which will reduce emissions and help developing countries on to a path of lower carbon growth by providing financial incentives.
	The Department is also helping developing countries to preserve their vital ecosystems. Our contribution of £50 million to a new Congo rainforest conservation fund is intended to help prevent the double tragedy of that forest's deforestation, for 50 million people depend on it for their livelihood, and we all depend on it as a second lung of the world.
	Yet international action on shared challenges such as climate change, securing growth or securing fair trade, requires effective international institutions. We accept that the international system today was created for the second half of the 20th( )century, not the first half of the 21st. That is why the report of the UN high level panel on system-wide coherence, in which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took part, is so important and points the way forward for the United Nations in the area of development. The UK has long pressed for UN reform, and I can assure the House that that will remain a priority for the Government.
	When I met Bob Zoellick, the incoming president of the World Bank, the week before last, I underlined to him the importance that the Government attach to working with the World Bank as one of the key multilateral institutions.

Pete Wishart: In May last year the UK Government withheld £50 million from the World Bank because of concerns about conditionality in economic growth and aid. If presented with evidence of the World Bank embarking on such conditionality, would the Secretary of State consider doing that again?

Douglas Alexander: I hope it is a comfort to the hon. Gentleman that the broad issue of conditionality and the approach that the bank is taking was one of the issues that I had the opportunity to discuss in the earliest days of Bob Zoellick assuming his position within the bank. We have been clear that we are looking for a number of steps to be taken to ensure the requisite degree of transparency in the work that the bank does, and to ensure that the voices of developing countries are heard, perhaps more effectively than has been the case in the work of the World Bank in the past.
	If I had to identify the challenge, I would say that it is to make sure that we have greater effectiveness of spend in-country. That often means devolving more decision making to country levels. In some ways I hope that the World Bank would take the kind of journey that has been taken by the Department for International Development in recent years, with a higher proportion of decisions now being taken within country. However, I would also want to ensure that the voices of developing countries are heard within the governing structures when those decisions are being taken. I was encouraged by the conversation that I had with Bob Zoellick on these matters. He is obviously reflecting on the challenges that he faces having come into the job only in the past month. I would expect that as we move towards the annual meetings later in the year we will have a clearer sense of the strategy under his presidency. I am optimistic that we will see some of the reforms that we have been urging upon him as we anticipate the International Development Association contribution later in the year.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Secretary of State will know that one of the surprising agreements following the UN summit was that the budget should be released only every six months, depending on UN reform. Would the Government support that approach? They have done it with the World Bank, so surely it would be appropriate to do it with the UN.

Douglas Alexander: I am rather wary of transferring specific methods of exerting influence from one institution to another. The nature of our relationship with the UN, as one of its very many members, albeit a member of the Security Council, is somewhat different from that of being a shareholder in the World Bank. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are actively engaged in conversations about the need for reform of the UN system, particularly in terms of system-wide coherence, and about the broader need for reform within the World Bank, which we will continue to press for in the critical months ahead as Bob Zoellick gets his feet under the table and begins work. We will stay actively engaged with the World Bank and with other multilateral institutions, because that reflects the broader approach that we want to see. We do not want a relationship of patronage, so much as one of partnership with developing countries, and it is vital that multinational institutions reflect that in the work that they do.
	Since 1997, the work of the Department for International Development has moved from the periphery of Government to the Cabinet table. We have gone a long way towards ensuring that Britain's contribution is no longer simply to provide the sticking plaster of old when crisis came, but to provide the building blocks for the poorest on earth to build a better future for themselves. Aid is a means by which we will alleviate poverty; development is how will end it. In our age, shaped as it is by the twin forces of globalisation and interconnectedness, to talk of one world is no longer to utter an abstract thought but to describe a concrete reality. In that one world, aid and development is not an act of charity but a vital investment in peace and prosperity, in equality and justice, in hope and humanity. If there is anything greater than the scale of the task that we face, it is the need for us to succeed. I commend our amendment to the House.

Lynne Featherstone: When I first assumed my Front-Bench position and met all the non-governmental organisations and people who populate the world of international development, I formed the impression that the former Secretary of State for International Development walked on water—I am sure that the current one will follow—in as much as DFID has vast amounts of money to give out to a great number of countries and causes. However, as an Opposition party we need to establish whether, in terms of those billions that go to the developing world, we are spending our money well. Do we get bangs for our bucks? Is the funding delivering? Is it being spent in a way that addresses global poverty, not just in terms of the great humanitarian need of sustaining life, but in terms of moving from poverty and dependence to independence, which must ultimately be our aim?
	This is a pretty consensual portfolio to have. I think that we would all agree that Make Poverty History was a phenomenal campaign whereby people across the developed world joined hands to put pressure on their Governments to make them give substantive promises at the G8 at Gleneagles. Great Britain can hold its head high in some respects. We provided £6.85 billion in aid last year—an increase from 0.47 to 0.52 per cent. of gross national income—although that is still some way short of the 0.7 per cent. target. Other promises, particularly from other countries, remain undelivered. Indeed, the Africa Progress Panel, headed by Kofi Annan, claimed that the western world is only 10 per cent. of the way towards fulfilling its Gleneagles commitments. In 2006, for the first time in a decade, total aid from the west fell.
	I welcome this debate. It is a timely reminder of the progress we have made and the challenges that remain, coming as it does at the mid-point between the setting of the millennium development goals and the 2015 deadlines. It is now becoming increasingly obvious that those goals will not be met—at least, not by many countries. Liberal Democrats are committed to a target of 0.7 per cent. of GNI by 2011 at the latest; it was a manifesto pledge. I was pleased to read the first recommendation of the Conservative review because it shows that they agree that the 0.7 per cent. target should be met sooner than 2013, although today's motion does not make that leap.
	I want to address three key issues that are pre-eminent in the fight against global poverty: the nature of sustainable development, the tackling of corruption and climate change. If we do not make the tackling of those our priority, we shall fail in perpetuity to lift poor and vulnerable countries out of dependence, poverty and misery. As has been discussed already, we must remove unfair trade barriers against low-income countries. I hope that it is obvious that a key objective of international trade policies has to be to stimulate sustainable development, because no country has ever been lifted out of poverty by aid alone. An over-reliance on debt relief and aid leads to an unhealthy dependence, which creates a vicious circle that can be impossible to escape from.
	As the Secretary of State said, it is vital that we reinvigorate the Doha talks to ensure a positive outcome for developing countries. We must reduce agricultural subsidies and trade barriers to guarantee a level playing field for all. The World Trade Organisation operates on a principle of one country, one vote, but we fail to give the poorest nations a voice in international trade negotiations.
	It is easy to blame the international community for the desperately unjust situation we are in, but we also need to look a bit closer to home. The European Union's record on free trade is deplorable, despite our best efforts. I cannot help thinking that our real chance to push that issue home was when we had the presidency of the EU in 2005. We have to help developing countries to build up their economies and civil society so that they can move away from dependency. China and India have pulled huge portions of their populations out of poverty through economic growth, which has primarily been driven by international trade. We also have to realise that it is in our own interest to liberalise the trade agenda. Farming subsidies come out of the public purse; taxpayers' money is being diverted from where it is most needed in order to fill the pockets of a small but powerful minority.
	Another part of the motion on global poverty mentions the need for
	"independent accounting as well as increased independent scrutiny of the United Kingdom's aid budget".
	We think that that is a very good idea, but corruption robs the aid budget of so much of its full value. We need to make sure that our money is delivering, and that the 10 per cent. take all the way along the line is stopped in its tracks.
	Aid donors can take four direct actions to strengthen the hand of political leaders in developing countries that need help in reducing corruption, as well as some less direct measures. First, there is a need to tighten up procurement rules, in terms of the legal framework and the rules on the use of aid. Corruption can add 20 to 100 per cent. to the cost of our aid. Obviously, it is easier to tackle the rules than the legal framework—the World Bank, EU and Department for International Development rules have significant loopholes or latitude.
	On another tack, as has been mentioned, there are lots of ways to trace the siphoning off of funds, but efforts at identifying the beneficiaries often appear half-hearted. The World Bank and others use specialists to trace funds. We can see how much Mobutu and Marcos money has been recovered after the fact. If Governments, including Her Majesty's Government, possess or can get such information about how and where money has been siphoned off, why do they not act? We must track down criminals and recover the money.
	We also appear to lack the will to use international law and United Nations institutions. Many developing countries are now signatories to the UN convention that requires an anti-corruption institution. Yet many signatories barely comply with the letter or spirit of the convention in practice or in law. There is much scope for extra leverage by donors if they help such fledgling institutions become robust.
	Even more problematic, much corruption in developing countries is legal. It ranges from the absence of a prohibition on Ministers owning companies that are recipients of hugely inflated contracts to permissiveness in capital markets, which enables Ministers, parliamentarians or officials to benefit directly from privatisations, bond issues and share acquisitions. That must change if we are to tackle corruption. We should be in there, helping strengthen anti-corruption measures with a review of a host of matters, from bribery to anti-competition laws; from insider trading to state governance.
	We need to start from the bottom up. Donors should channel more funds through local government because that can strengthen vital local democracy. Much large-scale corruption occurs via singular central elites, and that leads to the so-called "necessity" of single tribes or ethnic groups grabbing control of the reins of central Government. One central target that holds all the power and wealth of a nation is a much greater danger than local government responding to local needs and demands. Clearly, strengthening local governance and local democracy, and concentrating on the grass roots would cut corruption.
	I have been able to cast only a brief glance over the weighty tome that is the Conservatives' policy review, which was launched today, but it contained little mention of local government and the importance of channelling funding, especially economic development, at the level of the company, the firm and the local market. If we are serious about strengthening countries through help to help themselves, local governance and local democracy is a must to defeat corruption. Simply monitoring and watching corruption and knowing that it exists is not enough.
	A couple of months ago, Results UK arranged for me to meet a woman from Kenya called Lucy. She told me that, in Kenya, money from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria had been suspended because the Kenyan Government had failed to disburse the previous grants. It was only through grass-roots action and pressure from civil society groups such as hers that those blockages were removed—the Kenyan Government had to respond to the local demand for honesty. The Kenyan national TB programme could then continue its work.
	Sadly, advising on the necessary steps to tackle corruption abroad seems a bit rich coming from us at the moment. We can tackle corruption only if we are squeaky clean in our dealings across the world. Now is not the best time for us to hold up our heads.
	I want to consider an issue that hon. Members of all parties have acknowledged to be overwhelmingly important for the developing world: the threat of environmental degradation. I am upset that our amendment was not selected, but grateful that Labour and Conservative Members commended it.
	Catastrophic climate change is not the only environmental problem but it is, clearly, the most urgent one, especially for poor countries, which are constrained in their ability to react to a rapidly changing climate. Climate change will hit the poorest and the most vulnerable countries in the developing world first. A recent WWF report demonstrated that, of all the millennium development goals, the goal on environmental sustainability—MDG 7—is the only one for which the overall position is getting worse rather than better.
	Although the poorest people in the world have done least to cause climate change, they are the ones predicted to be worst affected. Poor people depend most directly on the services delivered by natural resources and ecosystems. They depend on them for food, fibre, water, fuel and income. The developed world, which is mostly responsible for climate change, should therefore help the developing world with adaptation. Applying the "polluter pays" principle, the developed world has an obligation to help poor and vulnerable countries to adapt to climate change. Therefore, we need in partnership to find additional funding for adaptation. The UK should perhaps take a lead on that, because we are one of those countries responsible for much of the pollution.
	Judging from the Government's past performance, as well as from my first impressions of the Conservatives' report, I am not convinced that there is a real urgency about addressing the need for action. The Make Poverty History campaign was a brilliant example of civil society action to put pressure on the G8, but I wish that equal efforts had been made on the other G8 priority of that year—climate change. Uncontrolled climate change will undo all the good that debt forgiveness or higher aid can deliver. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is no longer in his place, but it is good, as he said, that the G8 agreed to a UN-sponsored process on climate change.
	However, there is in fact already a process: the Kyoto protocol, which involves all the key developing countries. If President Bush had been serious about wanting to involve the US in climate talks, all he needed to do was to ratify the Kyoto protocol and join the ongoing talks about targets for the second commitment period, post 2012. Developing countries also need to accept emissions reductions. Equally, however, we cannot expect them to do that unless the industrial countries move further and faster. That principle is written into the UN framework convention on climate change, which almost every country has ratified, including the US.
	International institutions also need to adapt much more urgently to the new world of an increasingly unstable climate. The World Bank still does not pay enough attention to the issue and the International Monetary Fund almost none at all. Similarly, the World Trade Organisation treats environmental issues as an unimportant sideshow. It is notable that the environmental components of the Doha agenda have been all but abandoned. We must work for universal climate-proofing of development assistance if we are to ensure that climate change is mainstreamed in development programmes and initiatives. That is going to require co-ordination among the World Bank, the IMF and the OECD group of export credit agencies, to ensure that development objectives fully support climate change mitigation.
	In conclusion, development will be impaired, reduced, slowed and diminished, and we will not get value for money if we continue to refuse to liberalise trade. Our spend must be delivered effectively, which means tackling corruption, not just saying that we are tackling it. The driving imperative of development, in all its incarnations, must become inseparable from the environmental cataclysm that is climate change.

Hugh Bayley: We are halfway between the year 2000, when the millennium development goals were set, and 2015, when the aim is for them to be implemented. This month the UN published its 2007 report on the millennium development goals, which records substantial but uneven progress. For instance, the proportion of people living in extreme poverty—on less than $1 a day—has fallen from a third of the world's population in 1990 to less than a fifth now. If that trend continues, that goal will be met globally at least, but not in every region of the world. A great deal of the progress that has been made is down to the economic growth of one particular country—the world's most populous country, China. China's per capita income in 1979 was $210; last year it was $1,750.
	China is the world's workshop. Eighty per cent. of the world's photocopiers are produced there, as are 60 per cent. of its mobile phones and half of all its computers and textiles. It is a sleeping giant that has woken up. Economically, it is doing well, although it still faces major development challenges relating to halting and reversing the HIV and AIDS infection rates, to gender inequality and to access to safe water and sanitation, on which its performance is on a par with some of the poorest countries in Africa. Inequality is rising extremely fast in China. It is a more unequal country than the United States of America. These are some of the problems that the Chinese communist party congress will address this autumn, and the National People's Congress—China's attempt at a Parliament—will discuss them when it is called together again in the spring of next year.
	China's growth has profound implications for the global economy and for global development policy. By 2015, the target date for the millennium development goals, China could be a bigger economic partner for Africa than many of the OECD countries. On trade, for instance, China exported less than £1 billion worth of goods to Africa in 1995, yet by 2005, its exports to Africa were worth £11 billion—a twelvefold increase in just 10 years. In the same period, UK and French exports to Africa approximately doubled in value. In 1995, Africa exported £1.26 billion worth of goods to China, which was less than a third of what it exported to the United Kingdom. In 2005, it exported £8.9 billion worth of goods to China, nearly double its exports to the UK.
	The two-way trade between China and Africa—the sum total of their imports and exports—was nearly £25 billion in 2006, and certainly by 2010 and possibly by next year it will reach roughly £50 billion. That is approximately the volume of EU trade with Africa. By 2015, China's trade with Africa will certainly dwarf the EU's trade with Africa.
	It is hard to estimate the volume of China's aid to Africa. It is not a member of the OECD's development assistance committee, so it is difficult to compare like with like. Western donors distinguish between aid—official development assistance—and commercial investment, but a great deal of China's commercial investment comes from state banks or state-subsidised companies, so it is extremely difficult to make that distinction. At China's summit with African leaders last year, its president, Hu Jintao, pledged to double China's aid to Africa, although he did not specify what that would mean in cash terms. He did, however, announce credits and preferential loans to Africa with a value of US$5 billion.
	Last year, China committed $8.1 billion of assistance to Angola, Nigeria and Mozambique. To put that in context, last year the World Bank committed some $2.3 billion in new loans to Africa, which is considerably less than the sum committed by China. Chinese aid is often criticised for being tied aid. It involves not only money spent in Chinese companies but includes Chinese labour that goes to Africa to deliver many of its construction projects. China's aid is often linked to its gaining access to natural resources, although, looking back over the years, one cannot say that UK aid or western aid in general has always avoided commercial advantages. Chinese aid is often made conditional on political goals—the One China policy, for instance. The declaration from the China-Africa summit at the end of last year committed all the African leaders present to supporting that policy as part of the deal.
	Some Africans criticise China's aid policy. For example, the Kenyan " Nation" newspaper says:
	"China has an Africa policy, but Africa does not have a China policy... the danger is that China will politely rip off Africa just as the west did".
	However, most African political leaders support what China is doing in Africa—and it is not just those of Sudan, Angola or other states who are in receipt of a lot of Chinese aid because of the raw materials they supply to China's economy. President Festus Mogae of Botswana—a country that most of us would regard as a model of African development and a success story—says:
	"The Chinese treat us as equals, the west treats us as subjects".
	Mauritius is another African success story. Last week, it announced that it had secured $113 million in cheap Chinese grants and loans to develop its roads and telecommunications structures.
	The Commission for Africa identified that western donors had neglected infrastructure. China has identified that, too, but it is moving a great deal faster than we are to provide infrastructure support to African countries. The Sierra Leonean ambassador to China, Sahr Johnny, said:
	"If a G8 country had wanted to rebuild the stadium, for example, we'd still be holding meetings. The Chinese just come and do it."
	Other African leaders make similar comments about the nature of their relationship with China as a donor.
	I believe that China's priorities for Africa are different from ours, but that it is genuinely committed to Africa's development. China would gain a great deal from working more closely with western donors. We are not in a position to dictate terms to China, but I would like to see DFID building a closer working relationship with the Chinese and inviting China to become an observer at OECD development assistance committee meetings.
	A great deal of World Bank aid still goes to China. As the International Development Committee learned last week, a major loan package to help China to green its energy sector is being negotiated. I warmly welcome that, as China needs that kind of support. Since China has such enormous foreign exchange reserves, I do not think that the World Bank should be a net donor to China. We should invite the country, in view of the size of its foreign exchange reserves, to make a contribution to the next International Development Association replenishment equivalent to the size of the loans it receives from the World Bank and to become a donor, along with other World Bank nations.
	With only nine seconds to go, I must quickly say that we should seek to plug the gaps that Chinese aid does not touch, such as on governance and supporting the capacity of Parliaments in Africa to hold the—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Peter Lilley: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), who made a significant speech on an extremely important subject. The issues that he raised are addressed in the report; indeed, he may well find matters of great interest to him there. I am thinking of a paper written by a brilliant young man of Chinese origin, who makes three succinct points. First, we should never miss the opportunity to engage with China on governance issues. Secondly, we should recognise that China will double its aid, so we—the G8—should keep our promises to double our aid. Thirdly, we and our partners should redouble our efforts and co-operate in pursuing governance issues to ensure that they are not undermined by other new donors coming on the scene.
	I am indebted to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) both for securing the debate and for his masterly exegesis of a lengthy report. In delivering that, he has rather relieved me of the obligation that I had intended to fulfil of spelling out what it contains in its 453 pages. Therefore, perhaps I could address matters from a different angle from that which I intended.
	I came to the subject of development many decades ago when, as my mother put it, I had a proper job and I was a development economist working on aid and development programmes in Africa and Asia. At that stage, had someone asked me whether I would still be interested in those subjects and whether we would still be facing so many of the same problems today—some of the countries that I have revisited face even worse levels of poverty than they did then—I would not have believed them. I thought that by now poverty would be history.
	The situation was brought home to me clearly by someone who put it in stark terms. The aid effort began perhaps in 1948 with Harry Truman. Since then, $1 trillion has been spent on aid. Why is not poverty history? One reason is that that sum, although apparently large, is actually not so large spread over half a century and over billions of people. It is a handful of dollars for each poor person each year. Small wonder then that it has not cured the problem. There is every reason for us to increase aid, which I think the House is committed to do. My party, I am happy to see, is committed and has reaffirmed its intention to meet the 0.7 per cent. of GNI target by 2013, or earlier if possible.
	Another reason is that, for much of that period, aid was given largely for reasons other than the alleviation of poverty. The cold war meant that aid was used to buy allegiance rather than to end poverty. Tied aid meant that money was given to subsidise donors' domestic industries, rather than to relieve poverty. Once one reaches that conclusion, that is a good reason to put much more emphasis on the effectiveness of aid, and that is what we do in the report to a considerable degree.
	Although some of those problems have disappeared, for various reasons, ineffectiveness is still built into the governance of aid. Much attention is paid to the issue of governance within recipient countries but not enough to the issue of governance by donor countries. Tanzania has to give 2,400 reports in a single year to donors. It has to meet 1,000 or more delegations from donors. The pressure, weight and burden that is put on such countries by well meaning donors throughout the world is undoing the work that they are trying to achieve. That is why we put forward the proposal for partnership trusts to try to persuade as many donors as possible to give their money through a single channel, and to do so more effectively, efficiently and conveniently for the countries that we are helping through aid.
	Another reason is that a lot of aid is top-down. We in this country recognise that the man in Whitehall does not know best how money should be spent in Swindon. Why do we think that he knows best how money should be spent in parts of Africa or Asia? Therefore, we propose that we should try to move to demand-led funding, and to harness the experience, expertise and knowledge of people in the countries that we want to help by saying, "Bring projects or programmes to us, be you Governments, local governments, companies, non-governmental organisations, or groups in the country." The demand-led fund will provide aid, subject to those projects being the best ways to achieve the ends that the groups put forward, and there being measures of performance and appropriate arrangements for auditing. We want that method to be tried. We hope and believe that it would work, expand and form a more significant part of the funding, or be used by partnership trusts themselves in handling funding for projects that they were carrying out in country.
	A third response can be made to the statement that poverty is not history: for many people it is history. Millions of people do not experience poverty, disease or hunger because they and the countries in which they live have risen out of poverty as aid has worked. Aid has been successful in eradicating diseases—or at least eliminating them from large areas. Among such diseases are smallpox, polio, guinea worm disease and African river blindness.
	One of the great successes in terms of hunger has been the green revolution in Asia. That is why we want there to be an extension of agricultural aid to produce a green revolution in the rain-fed and arid areas of Africa and Asia that were not touched by that first green revolution. We ought to make more of the successes in aid, and build on them. That is another of the report's themes.
	The greatest successes have come about as a result of countries growing economically, and the great motor of such growth is trade. There have been great changes in opinion and a great mobilisation of support for increasing the aid effort and eliminating the burden of debt through campaigns such as Make Poverty History, Live 8 and drop the debt. We want a similar mobilisation of opinion through a campaign by all parties in this country and by all the countries of Europe and the developed world to create real trade opportunities for developing countries.

Susan Kramer: The right hon. Gentleman and I went on the same trip to India, where we saw the slums of the textile manufacturers. What does his report say on corporate social responsibility, as we were often told on that trip that western buyers demanding the lowest price was the driver of the worst conditions?

Peter Lilley: Actually, I recollect agreeing with the hon. Lady on those visits in that we were both struck by the fact that people who worked in what we might describe as sweatshops said how delighted they were to have those jobs and how that had meant that their incomes had increased and their prospects had improved so that they could now send their children to school. Then, if not now, she and I agreed that we wanted more industrial development and growth and more companies competing for markets. We did not see that situation as simply showing that foreign companies needed to adopt different standards. Most of the companies concerned were domestic companies who were doing the best by their people and who would be unable to compete if unduly onerous obligations were put on them.
	We want there to be a campaign for real trade. The Secretary of State did not engage with the main arguments, but instead made some rather strange points on Europe. He does not seem to realise that the person who chaired the campaign for real trade steering committee is Syed Kamall, a member of the International Trade Committee of the European Parliament. He will seek support across parties and across countries in an attempt to mobilise opinion.
	I hope that everyone will respond in a manner in keeping with the spirit of the proposal, so that we generate passionate commitment to plans and calls to create opportunities for developing countries to participate and share in our markets, such as by unilaterally opening ours to them, by removing unnecessary and unintended restrictions such as those on rules of origin, by abolishing export subsidies, by helping to open up trade between neighbouring countries, and by putting greater emphasis on aid for trade to increase their export capacity. All those steps might receive cross-party support. I hope that they do so, and that they get support across the country, across Europe and across the world, and that we put a genuine pro-poor package at the heart of a revived Doha—or, if it does not revive, in its place.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: It is always very interesting to follow the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). The Government have a good story to tell about their approach to tackling global poverty, and I wish to examine how that approach is being developed in Afghanistan, because that has some interesting lessons for us. I remind the House of the atrocious poverty in Afghanistan. More than half the population live on less than $1 a day, one in four Afghan children die before their fifth birthday and 30 per cent. of rural Afghans are partly malnourished. Of course, the situation has been exacerbated by 27 years of war.
	What is crucial is that the people of Afghanistan want their country to improve. It is also important that we do not see the situation as overwhelming. That is why the approach that has been adopted by the Government is so helpful, and they are leading the way for other countries. The Government have signed a 10-year development partnership with the Government of Afghanistan and that has brought together their shared commitments to reduce poverty and meet the millennium development goals; to respect human rights and other international obligations; and to strengthen the financial management and accountability of money that is donated, which is directly relevant to the Opposition's motion. Specifically, DFID has given itself the challenge of supporting the delivery of the Afghan national development strategy, which seeks not only to tackle poverty, but to develop the economy of the country. DFID is also providing development assistance by working with other partners to alleviate poverty and promote development.
	DFID has made a three-year rolling commitment, from 2006 to 2009, delivering £330 million of development aid. It has said that that assistance will continue until 2015-16. That is really important, because we need to make a long-term commitment to those countries with huge problems. Tackling poverty and putting systems for development in place do not happen overnight, especially when one starts from the low base in Afghanistan.
	At the moment, some 80 per cent. of aid from Britain is being directed through the Government of Afghanistan. That causes some issues for NGOs, who would prefer more of the money to go to them. Work to address that issue is being undertaken through DFID and its partner agencies in Afghanistan, to involve NGOs in the delivery of services, so that they are able to receive money indirectly through the Government of Afghanistan. That approach is still in the early stages of formulation and we may need to consider how effective it is in the future. DFID has said that it is keeping the 80 per cent. figure under review, and that is important.
	The level of aid provided is of course critical, and we should note that the UK is the largest donor to the Government of Afghanistan's recurrent budget, but it is very important—as expressed in the Government's amendment—that we consider the outcomes. It is important to work with other countries and to ensure that delivery is achieved on the ground. Indeed, there is evidence of that in Afghanistan, in the development not only of new towns but also of basic infrastructure.
	DFID is making progress. Due to DFID's work with the Afghan Government and other partners, more than 5 million children are in school—up from 45,000 in 1993. A large number of refugees have returned to Afghanistan. Forty thousand fewer babies die, mostly because of vaccination programmes supported in part by DFID. The number of functioning health clinics has increased by 60 per cent. The proportion of women receiving antenatal care has also increased, from 5 per cent. in 2003 to 30 per cent. in 2006.
	The economy has grown by 8 per cent. and it is certainly hoped that growth will continue this year. An important aspect of support is that given to microfinance, which supports small farmers and women in cottage industries and helps to build up the economic base. Microfinance is being adopted by the Government and others to support development through the economy.
	Since 2001, DFID has spent more than £490 million on reconstruction and development, and a large proportion of that money is now going through the Afghan Government. With reference to the point made by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), it is important that some of the money is being devolved to the municipalities, such as Kandahar. We are used to thinking of Afghanistan in terms of security, which is obviously important; our armed forces are in the country and we must never forget the security concerns, but development is taking place, too. In Kandahar, people have been able to build roads; there are housing projects, six parks and a new industrial park, which supports 70 factories where the number of work opportunities is growing.
	The evaluation carried out by the Afghan Government found that such projects were exactly what they should be doing. Supporting such factories in the municipalities makes it possible to reduce poverty and increase security; if people have jobs they will have less interest in participating in illegal activities that are harmful and detrimental to the community's security and progress. We can see a direct link: aid goes to the Afghan Government and then to the municipality where it creates jobs for people on the ground, which is obviously what we want.
	There are of course still incredible challenges and it would be wrong to suggest that we have got there with Afghanistan. That is clearly not the case. However, the way in which the Government have put the money in—working through the Afghan Government, trying to give them advice and support to make their systems more accountable, as well as working with other aid agencies—provides a useful model. There are still issues with regard to co-ordination and there is clearly a role for the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan. The security situation needs to be stabilised so that more development can take place.
	The institutions of civil society need to be developed, and the Afghan Government are interested in working with us to deliver a stronger civil society. Obviously, the aid process needs to be inclusive so that local people feel that they have some say over how the money is spent in their local communities. That is happening increasingly in Afghanistan, and it is an example of Britain leading the way in tackling global poverty through economic development and—crucially—sustainable development.

Tony Baldry: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) and his colleagues on an excellent report. I think we have all come to international development wanting to see the eradication of poverty, and to that extent the starting point for us all has been the millennium development goals, but even since the Commission for Africa three new matters have emerged. The first has been the rise of China. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) and I would not wish to add anything to what he said. He described that position extremely well. We must all take note of the rise of China, both as a country that is going to take its people out of poverty and which we should therefore help to meet the millennium goals, and for the contributions that it is making to Africa.
	Secondly, I agree with the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods) that, sadly, the relationship between security and development, which we are witnessing in Afghanistan, will be one of the increasing complexities for DFID and conflict resolution as we move through the 21st century.
	Thirdly, as the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) said, so many policies will now need to be regional strategic policies, on such issues as climate change. Those of us who have visited Darfur and Chad have had cause to wonder how much of that situation has been an ethnic problem and how much has been a climate problem in terms of the loss of pastoral land. These new issues are emerging and making life more complicated, but poverty has focused the minds of both donors and recipients.
	There are things that we need to do to move on. First, we need to ensure that countries keep up to the mark on the amount of aid giving and the 0.7 commitment. In the report, the idea of a global donor index is very impressive because actually many of the commitments that were made at Gleneagles have not been met, as the sums of the German presidency demonstrated. We also need to ensure that there is greater aid effectiveness. This evening we have heard of a number of instances of developing countries having to cope with a huge number of donors, and therefore the idea of partnership trusts makes a lot of sense. I think that hon. Members from all parts of the House will realise that when they look at this proposal.
	But one of the most important points in the report is this. Wherever the International Development Committee goes in aspiration, one question that it asks itself is, "Where will the jobs come from?" It is for that reason that trade, and ensuring the success of the Doha round or a replacement for it, are crucial. I hope that hon. Friends will have the opportunity to look at the detail of the proposals for a real trade campaign, because ensuring that there is momentum on trade will be really crucial for developing countries in the coming years. We are all anxious to allow every colleague a chance to speak, so time does not enable me to develop that theme, but before anyone seeks to knock the report, I simply ask them to read the proposals on trade; they are compelling.
	Lastly, I am at a loss to see the difference between the motion on the Order Paper tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and the Government's amendment. There seems to be no difference at all. This is an issue where Members on all sides of the House should be trying to reach the greatest agreement. I agree with the Secretary of State; I was campaigning for Europe quite a long time ago, and we need to have a united voice as a House and as a country if we are to have real influence in the European Union and elsewhere in the world.

Mark Durkan: As the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) said, this debate reflects the fact that when we contrast our expectations for progress on world poverty and experience, it becomes clear that progress does not roll along on the wheels of inevitability. We need concerted efforts; we need to make real commitments and follow through on those real commitments; and we need to recognise that setting targets is very good but delivering targets is even better. We also need to recognise that partnership must be the ethic that runs through all our aid efforts. The Government have established a firm credential for partnership, unlike other countries that still have a strong element of patronage permeating their aid policies and programmes, but none of us can be smug about such things.
	I will not rehearse the points that other hon. Members have made about the challenges that we face, but one of the issues that we perhaps need to consider as we tackle poverty and the different challenges is, of course, the complexity that arises in the context of conflict. In particular, we need to ensure that our approaches to aid and trade and our work in and with developing countries take account of the difficulties, tensions and pressures that can arise.
	I suggest that, just as in many ways the EU as a model of conflict resolution has found itself with a strong capacity to engage in certain theatres in the world, there is another dimension that we need to think about: the historic conflict resolution that we have achieved on these islands between a large country and a small country. We have a history of colonisation within these islands. We have a history of famine in Ireland, and so on. In the current context, Britain and Ireland working together in some areas would bring an added benefit and purpose.
	I hope that Ministers here and Ministers elsewhere will perhaps consider that one of the things that we might spin off in the context of the British-Irish Council is a framework whereby our development co-operation effort can properly include and involve the various devolved Administrations in these regions, who are seeking to have an input into development policy. The Scottish Executive have developed a programme in relation to Malawi. There are efforts in Wales, and many of us in Northern Ireland are part of an all-party group that is looking at something similar. But rather than us all engaging in karaoke versions of our own DFID, I believe that between the Department of Foreign Affairs in Dublin and the excellent work of Co-operation Ireland and the very good work of DFID, those Administrations and, indeed, local government more widely might be better engaged in more fruitful development co-operation in terms of partnerships.
	With the emphasis that so many hon. Members have put on governance, administration, transparency and programme delivery, much can be given in that regard. I am certainly reinforced in that view by my experience in a devolved Administration of some of the challenges that we faced as we dealt with the models of governance that worked for us. Indeed, people elsewhere in the EU accession countries came to Ireland, north and south, to learn how we handled EU programmes, the transparency and governance issues and the various partnership questions with stakeholders. Many lessons can be applied in that respect. That is not to set aside any of the other very important points, but I wanted to confine myself to adding an additional aspect that might be missing from some other contributions.

John Bercow: It is a great privilege to follow the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). The debate was opened by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) with that combination of intellect, erudition and courtesy that are his defining characteristics and that command the respect of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
	There is no doubt that the fact that more than 1 billion people in the developing world exist—I will not say live—on less than a $1 a day is a scar on the face of humanity that disfigures and in a very real sense diminishes every single one of us. In seeking to tackle that appalling human tragedy and to offer hope for the future, there are three points that at this stage in our proceedings and in our national deliberations we need keenly and authoritatively to address.
	First, if we believe in more aid—we do in each of our respective parties; I have argued for it from the Front and Back Benches, throughout the last Parliament—we must recognise that there is at least as important a duty on us to recognise and fight against corruption. Indeed, I would argue to the Secretary of State in a non-partisan spirit that that obligation is more important at the time of a rising aid budget.
	Of course we want more transparency, accountability, scrutiny, support for Parliaments, exposure of wrongdoing and appropriate punishments. We also have a duty to recognise that corruption must be fought wherever it rears its ugly head, whether it is in the practice of recipient Governments or the behaviour of corporate entities. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) is to be warmly congratulated on the suggestion that we work towards the formulation of an EU common code on this subject, to which individual countries and perhaps businesses would sign up. We should give real teeth to our commitment to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development convention on bribery by translating its essence, spirit and provisions into domestic legislation. That has not happened and it is overdue. There is a compelling case for it and there is now an opportunity for it to happen. I hope very much that it will.
	My second point is that, notwithstanding the efficacy of, and the case for, increased aid, there is a real opportunity to improve economic development and a demand for that. That requires a new focus on, and commitment to, infrastructure in two forms: commercial and physical. I emphasise commercial infrastructure. We should seek to foster the creation of what I would call the institutional infrastructure of competitive capitalism in the developing world. That means the creation of clear systems of property rights; a recognition of the concept of credit; transparent, simplified and intelligible taxation systems; the enforceability of contracts; and courts through which we can give effect to that principle.
	Physical infrastructure is important too. Okay, the past was disappointing. There were failures. Mistakes occurred under successive Governments. Prestige projects went wrong. Too much money was spent and it was very badly accounted for. Scandals resulted. But that does not in any sense reduce—still less obviate—the responsibility upon us now to go forward seeing the merits of decent infrastructure. Without decent roads, decent rail, decent transport and decent communication systems, the aspiration to economic improvement, to individual fulfilment, to national development in the developing world remains just that: an idle aspiration. So, yes, we need to have economic development. That must be a prime objective of British, European, and multilateral aid policy.
	Finally, we must have a massive expansion of trade, because the catalyst that it provides for economic development is potentially enormous. There is a compelling argument for unilateral initiatives, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden has so rightly proposed, and, yes, it is about the removal of trade barriers and the elimination of trade-distorting subsidies. It is also about doing what we give the impression that we intend to do. We must mean what we say and say what we mean.
	I give the example of duty-free and quota-free access. I say to the Secretary of State that it is no good international leaders saying that 97 per cent. of tariff lines will be of benefit to the developing world because there will be duty-free and quota-free access, if the more than 300 individual product lines—the 3 per cent.—that are of most importance to the countries, and offer the most potential benefit, do not form part of the equation. Bangladesh has to be able to export its textiles to the United States, and other countries that specialise in footwear, or, for that matter, fish or leather products, have to be able to sell those products.
	It is time that the developed world ceased its nauseating hypocrisy of preaching free markets while practising protectionism on a truly industrial and breathtaking scale. As a consequence of the failures of multilateral policy and a lack of imagination, too many people in the developing world have suffered too much for too long with too little done to help them. That situation must change, and it will better change with cross-party support in the House and multilateral backing in the international community.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It is a privilege to sum up this debate and to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) for his seminal work entitled "In it together: the attack on global poverty". That is an apt title and a good place to start. There have been some excellent speeches from the hon. Members for City of York (Hugh Bayley), for Foyle (Mark Durkan), and for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods), but I am going to concentrate on the speeches made by my right hon. Friends the Members for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and for Hitchin and Harpenden, and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), and on the excellent speech made just now by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow). As always, he was erudite, concise, and said a great deal in the time available to him.
	A consensus is developing across the House about what we need to achieve with the UK aid effort. I used to be chairman of the all-party population and reproductive health group, and long ago there was a campaign to achieve the target of having 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product given in aid. At long last, the consensus in the House is that we should move towards that target, and one of the very few monetary pledges made by my party is that we should achieve it by the year 2013. Incidentally, that would mean that DFID's current budget of £5.9 billion would rise to £8.6 billion by that date.
	When the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), winds up the debate, I hope that he will deal with some of the very serious proposals in this report. We need to use aid money more effectively to lift out of poverty the more than 1 billion who live on less than $1 a day—something that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham rightly called a scandal. We must all work to that end, and neither the Opposition nor the Government have a monopoly of wisdom about how that can be done. I hope that the Minister will not spend his entire speech trumpeting the Government's marvellous success at achieving that.
	It is critical that aid is effective. To ensure that it is, we must concentrate on what people in recipient countries want. As my hon. Friends have said, that means that we should concentrate on outcomes rather than inputs. Above all, our policy should be intelligible, and easy to operate in the countries for which it is intended.
	I remember having a conversation with the UN ambassador to Sierra Leone, in which he told me about what happened after the election there. We all know that there was a huge campaign and a civil war before the British Government eventually succeeded in getting that country to move towards democracy, but three days after the election the UN agencies wanted to know what the new Government's next 10-year plan was. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden says, we must stop bombarding countries like that with requests and targets—and he used the very good example of Tanzania being required to produce 2,400 reports.
	In the short time available, I want to concentrate on the effectiveness of our aid. As the report proposes, it can be delivered in a simpler way, through partnerships that involve various international donors and Governments acting on a multilateral basis. In that way, we can offer an aid package to countries that is much simpler to operate.
	The hon. Member for City of Durham drew on the experience that she and I gained on our visit to Afghanistan. There, as she will recall, we found that most European Governments give their aid directly to the Government, in a deliberate attempt to bolster that Government's capacity. Sadly, we also found that the US—whose aid budget, estimated at £9 billion this coming year, is by far the biggest—gives most of its aid unilaterally, through USAID. That has caused much confusion, and it would be much better if all donors were to operate in concert.
	I want to press the Minister a little to find out how he sees our part of the EU aid package operating. Does he agree that it should be on a unilateral basis, so that the EU can offer concessions to the poor donor countries? Those concessions could take the form of reducing tariff barriers and obstacles to trade, although we should not expect the poor donor countries to introduce similar cuts themselves, as to do so could leave them devastated. I hope that the Minister will say something about that.
	The second part of the report sets out how trade should encourage growth. Ultimately, it is only through growth that most countries will be lifted out of poverty. Vietnam offers a good example of that. After the war, it was poorer than most African countries, but today it has a flourishing economic base and is about to apply to join the World Trade Organisation—a real success story.
	With effective aid, there is no reason why many African countries should not be able to do exactly the same thing. It was a great sadness to the Opposition that the Government were not able to complete the WTO's Doha round. There is no doubt about it: a successful WTO round will put billions of pounds into developing countries' pockets, so it is one of the most effective ways of lifting countries out of poverty. I hope that, even now, the Government will put every effort into trying to persuade our EU partners to complete the Doha round successfully.
	If aid is to be delivered successfully, it must be seen to be properly scrutinised, and I welcome the proposals for independent scrutiny in the report produced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden. In particular, I welcome the suggestion that Parliament should debate our proposals on partnerships. It is through debate, scrutiny and proper publication of the goals and aims of each donor project that we can deliver aid more effectively.
	I agree with the Liberal amendment to the motion. Eliminating or reducing climate change is critical, just as aid is, because if we do not try to reduce climate change, we cannot hand on a better world to our children and grandchildren, and I came into politics to do just that. If each and every one of us makes a little bit of difference to the world and passes it on in a better state than we found it, we will have achieved something in our political careers.

Gareth Thomas: I welcome the debate, which provided the House with a further important opportunity to consider what further steps the international community can take to make progress in the fight against global poverty. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said, given that more than a billion people live on less than a dollar a day, we in the developed world have a particular responsibility to help to tackle that poverty.
	Our aid is already having an important impact. Over 10 million more children in India are in school as a result of aid that we have provided over the past three years. There are some 700 more nurses in Malawi, and the number of people who have access to antiretrovirals in southern Africa has more than trebled in recent years as a direct result of our aid. Under the former Prime Minister, and indeed the current Prime Minister, our leadership across the world, and within the European Union and the G8 in particular, has resulted in a debt relief deal worth up to $55 billion for the poorest countries of the world. Aid levels are rising, too, but clearly more needs to be done in some countries in the European Union. Our aid has trebled since 1997, and we are the first Government in the nation's history to set a timetable for reaching the UN's 0.7 per cent. goal.
	We will continue to champion a Doha round of world talks that is genuinely in the interests of developing countries, as hon. Members have asked us to. We will also champion economic partnership agreements that genuinely offer hope to our friends in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific, and new trading opportunities on fair terms with the prospect of new jobs to come. We will also champion an "aid for trade" package of support that genuinely helps countries to exploit the market access offers that such talks will eventually secure. We recognise that there is more to do, and the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) gave one important example of the challenges that we face in the negotiations.
	My hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) was right to highlight the new role that China plays as a donor, particularly in Africa. He rightly highlighted the importance of engagement with China on that activity—a point echoed by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). I am sure that both Members will be reassured to hear that we are indeed engaging with the Chinese. We are meeting delegations in the UK and in Beijing to discuss how aid resources are spent and climate change, a common challenge for us.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) raised the important issue of continuing to work in countries that have been devastated by conflict. He will know of the particular importance that we attach to helping fragile states. He may know, too, of the recent visit that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made to Darfur to continue to explore what we can do to help address the terrible situation in that country.
	The tragedy of the report is its timing. It is 20 years too late. Twenty years ago it would have been radical. The views on trade would have been particularly revolutionary. We can ask how many fewer children would be out of school now, how many extra nurses would be helping to fight HIV/AIDS in southern Africa, and how many extra miles of roads and metres of water pipes would have been laid, had the report been published 20 years ago. Instead, we saw the Conservatives continuing to cut the amount of aid available to be spent on development in poor countries.
	I say gently and with sadness that we on the Government Benches will find it difficult to take seriously the pledge on 0.7 per cent., when at the first sign of pressure from the right wing of the Conservative party, the Leader of the Opposition caves in. Can we have any confidence that the Opposition will be able to resist the temptation to raid the development budget to find tax cuts for the few and appeal again to the party's right wing?

John Bercow: Will the Minister give way?

Gareth Thomas: The right hon. Member for West Dorset was right to say that aid from one country will not make enough difference fast enough. It is also true that the right policies on debt relief from one country will not make enough difference fast enough.

John Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Hon. Members: Give way!

Gareth Thomas: It is true, too, that the right policies on trade on the part of one country will not make enough difference fast enough. A collective international effort is required, but as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly pointed out, the Opposition do not have the record or the credibility with other leaders and parliamentarians in Europe and beyond to put that international coalition together.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister give way?

Gareth Thomas: The Opposition are isolated in Europe—

Hon. Members: Give way!

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister does not seem to want to give way. [Hon. Members: "He should give way."] Whether he should or not, he does not want to give way.

Gareth Thomas: The truth is that the Conservatives cannot come to terms with the fact that they are isolated in Europe, isolated in the international community, and isolated on their own Front Bench. They lack the ability to give international leadership on the issue. To be advised by the Opposition about spending aid money well has shades of King Herod advising on child care. They, after all, were responsible for the worst misuse of development assistance that our country has seen—the Pergau dam affair.
	I turn to the comments of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone). She rightly raised the issue of corruption and governance. She will know of the considerable effort that we have made to help countries put in place the robust financial systems that they need to ensure that our aid money, and their own tax revenues, are well spent. She will know, too, that on occasion we have withheld aid from countries which we did not think had made enough progress in putting such financial systems in place.
	On governance, we know that charity is not enough. The point did not seem to have been properly grasped in the report. NGOs have a crucial role to play, but on their own they are not enough. In the end, it is Governments whom we must help—not Governments in Sudan, of course, or in Zimbabwe, and certainly not in Burma, but yes, Governments in Ghana, Zambia, Mozambique, in Rwanda definitely, India, Afghanistan, Tanzania and Botswana. We must help Governments so that they can help their people. In the end it is Governments who have to create health services for all their people, build an effective civil service, and put in place the mechanisms to ensure that their countries have a strong Parliament, free media and a vibrant civil society. It is Governments who can create the economic stability necessary for the private sector to thrive.

John Bercow: I thank the Minister for giving way. If the consequence of a trade deadlock is to cause the poorest countries in the world to lose $5,000 million a month, does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is merit in trying to persuade the European Union unilaterally to abandon its trade protectionism?

Gareth Thomas: I entirely agree that we need to do a considerable amount more to persuade our colleagues in the European Union to make additional concessions. However, we also need to use our leverage in the Doha round of negotiations to ensure that our allies across the Atlantic give way, particularly on cotton subsidies and on trade-distorting domestic support. Similarly, we need to use our leverage as the European Union to ensure that other developed nations give way and offer up better access for developing countries. I simply do not see how the hon. Gentleman thinks that his party would be able to have that influence with European Union allies when it does not have the relationship with the other political parties that are necessary to give leverage.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Until the Minister's speech, there was a great deal of unanimous agreement across the House, which is much more effective than the rather partisan way in which he is handling the debate at the moment.

Gareth Thomas: I would be negating my responsibility to the House if I did not point out the Conservatives' dismal record on these issues and the weaknesses in the report that they have published. I simply offer these comments in a spirit of helpfulness and friendliness, and a little in the spirit of sadness towards the hon. Gentleman. I have no doubt that if my speech and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are carefully scrutinised, they will help to improve the quality of the continuing debate in the Conservative party.
	Good governance is the reason South Korea is developing and North Korea is not developing. It is the reason Botswana, despite all its problems, makes progress and Zimbabwe, tragically, as the House debated only last week, goes backwards.
	We have achieved a lot over the past 10 years. As I said, our aid budget has trebled. We are making a difference through the way in which our aid is spent. We are helping to ensure that more children in Ethiopia and Ghana are in primary school. We still face huge challenges in terms of the numbers of children—more than 70 million—who are out of school. Those children are denied the most basic opportunities of all—to learn and to read and write, and to have a teacher open their minds to the world beyond the walls within which they live.
	There is an awful lot more to do. We are continuing to work with colleagues across the European Union to encourage them to raise their aid, to deliver on the debt relief commitment that they have made, and make progress on the international trade talks—the Doha round and the economic partnerships agreements that Members on both sides of the House recognise are so crucial if we are to achieve in developing countries the routes out of poverty and to economic stability and growth. That is why I was in Brussels yesterday at a meeting of Trade Ministers, where I made the case for more liberal and simplified rules of origin and for the Commission to make a more generous offer in the Doha round. I suspect that in time a more generous offer will also be needed on economic partnerships agreements. I am sure that the House will be pleased to hear that many Trade Ministers expressed considerable support for that point of view. Although the G4 talks at Potsdam were not as positive as we would have liked, the gaps have narrowed considerably.
	However, there is more work to do. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already spent a considerable amount of time and effort in talking to President Bush and to key figures in Brazil and other parts of the developing world who are engaged in these talks. He has been talking to Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, and to others in the European Union, looking to galvanise new momentum into the talks—

Andrew Robathan: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
	 Question, That the Question be now put , put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 207, Noes 302.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Question, That the proposed words be there added,  put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31(Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Mr. Speaker  forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House acknowledges the Government's global leadership on international development; welcomes the Government's stated objective to increase the aid budget to 0.7 per cent. of gross national income by 2013; further welcomes the widespread support which this policy has secured; further acknowledges the centrality of effectively delivered aid to low income countries' sustainable economic development; welcomes the Government's untying of aid; supports the United Kingdom Government's moves to establish an independent evaluation mechanism and its increased focus on aid effectiveness, results and impact; and acknowledges that the UK Government is working at the multilateral and bilateral levels to remove the trade barriers which developing countries face and to help them take advantage of new market opportunities through the provision of aid for trade.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Immigration

That the draft Asylum (Designated States) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 22nd May, be approved. —[Mr. Khan.]

Mr. Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.
	 Division deferred till Wednesday 25 July, pursuant to Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions).
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Security Industry

That the draft Private Security Industry Act 2001 (Amendments to Schedule 2) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 7th June, be approved. —[Mr. Khan.]
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Companies

That the draft Companies Act 2006 (Commencement No. 3, Consequential Amendments, Transitional Provisions and Savings) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 9th July, be approved. —[Mr. Khan.]
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Children and Young Persons

That the draft Children Act 2004 Information Database (England) Regulations 2007, which were laid before this House on 4th July, be approved. —[Mr. Khan.]

Mr. Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.
	 Division deferred till Wednesday 25 July, pursuant to Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions).

REGULATORY REFORM

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(1) (Consideration of draft regulatory reform orders),

Deer

That the draft Regulatory Reform (Deer) (England and Wales) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.  —[Mr. Khan.]
	 Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(European Standing Committees),

Soil Protection

That this House takes note of European Union Documents Nos. 13401/06 and Addenda 1 and 2, Commission Communication Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection, and 13388/06, Draft Directive establishing a framework for the protection of soil and amending Directive 2004/35/EC; and supports the Government's aim of ensuring that any new EU obligations in respect of the protection of soils and their functions are evidence-based, proportionate and cost effective and take full account of the principles of subsidiarity and better regulation, particularly in respect of Member States' existing national legislation. —[Mr. Khan.]
	 Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Wednesday 25th July—
	(1) the Speaker shall put the Questions on:
	(a) the Motion in the name of Ms Harriet Harman relating to Standing Orders Etc. Machinery of Government Changes); and
	(b) the Motion in the name of Mr Nicholas Brown relating to the Modernisation of the House
	not later than two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first Motion; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved, proceedings may continue, though opposed after the moment of interruption and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply; and
	(2) proceedings on the Motion for the adjournment of the House in the name of the Prime Minister relating to the draft legislative programme may continue, though opposed, for three hours or until Seven o'clock, whichever is the later, and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of.—— —[Mr. Khan.]

PETITIONS

Inland Waterways

Tony Baldry: I have pleasure in presenting a petition on behalf of the constituents of Banbury and other users of Britain's inland waterways. The petition, signed by well over 1,000 of my constituents, declares:
	That our inland waterways are a unique national asset that provides an important contribution to the quality of life for millions of our citizens. We therefore are deeply concerned that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has seen fit to reduce British Waterways' grant by some £60 million over the next five years and that of the Environment Agency by £25 million in this financial year. We believe that these cuts will have a devastating effect on the well-being of inland waterways.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call upon the Government to introduce legislation to solve the immediate problems caused by these cuts to current budgets and to ensure that long-term funding is guaranteed to enable continued investment and restoration of the waterways.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Derwent Valley

David Anderson: For the past three years, people in the north-east of England have faced yet another attempt by open-cast coal developers to exploit and rape the beautiful Derwent valley. Despite the opposition of the local authority and in defiance of the views of thousands of local people and a multitude of public and private bodies, the developers have gone to appeal. In that process, they have continually failed to disclose the appropriate information to all concerned, and persisted with a plan that has given the residents of the area grave cause for concern.
	This petition, signed by more than 4,500 people, is a public declaration of their opposition to those plans, and I urge the Secretary of State to use all her powers to protect one of the last remaining green spaces in the Tyneside conurbation.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Inland Waterways

Peter Soulsby: I wish to present a petition with more than 600 signatures of constituents of Leicester, South and other users of Britain's inland waterways. It expresses widespread concern about the future of those waterways—a concern that I share. I commend all involved in this campaign, particularly Mr. David Stevenson and, of course, the indefatigable Inland Waterways Association. The petitioners declare
	That our inland waterways are a unique national asset that provides an important contribution to the quality of life for millions of our citizens. We therefore are deeply concerned that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has seen fit to reduce British Waterways' grant by some £60 million over the next 5 years and that of the Environment Agency is having its budget reduced by £25 million... We believe that these cuts will have a devastating effect upon the well-being of inland waterways.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call upon the Government to introduce legislation to solve the immediate problems caused by these cuts to current budgets and to ensure that long-term funding is guaranteed to enable continued investment and restoration of the waterways.
	And the petitioners remain etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Elvet Waterside

Roberta Blackman-Woods: This rather beautiful petition relates to the proposed development at Elvet waterside in Durham and expresses the opposition of local residents to the loss of green recreational space. Interestingly, it includes signatories from local schools whose children are very anxious that play facilities are retained. The land in question relates to green space east of the swimming bath car park's wall, including the former bowling green on the old racecourse on the river bank in Durham city.
	Mr. Jack Gill and 3,300 signatories are involved in the petition:
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department for Communities and Local Government to do all to protect and retain this public space for the present citizens of the City of Durham, future residents and posterity and visitors.
	And the petitioners remain, etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Prison Service (Staff Relocation)

Philip Hollobone: The proposed closure of Her Majesty's Prison Service office at Crown house in Corby and the relocation of its staff to Leicester have caused much consternation, anger and anxiety among staff and local residents. It is, in my view, discriminatory against the largely female and white work force. I have the honour to present this petition, signed by 3,560 people:
	To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
	The humble petition of Mrs.Vicki Tomlin and others of like disposition listed below
	Sheweth
	That the proposed relocation of Prison Service staff from Crown House, Corby to Leicester should be stopped.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to urge the Ministry of Justice to consider the plight of Mrs Vicki Tomlin and others who work at Crown House and stop the relocation.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Pedestrian Crossing (Western Road)

Andrew Rosindell: I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in Romford, many of whom shop in the town centre. A number of constituents use the local Western road life skills centre and they need a pedestrian crossing—a safe way to cross the busy road to enable them to go to the town centre without fear of being run down. A petition has been collected signed by no fewer than 500 local people from Romford. The petition reads:
	To the House of Commons,
	The Petition of residents of the Borough of Havering and others
	Declares the petitioners' serious concerns over the refusal by both Havering Borough Council and Transport for London to take responsibility for the need to establish a pedestrian crossing on Western Road, an especially busy section of highway within the constituency of Romford. The petitioners are further concerned that the lack of a pedestrian crossing is having a huge impact on the surrounding community, with people of all ages and disabilities, who are experiencing great difficulty in crossing the road and negotiating the large amounts of traffic synonymous with this stretch of road.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Transport to use her powers to intervene and clarify which party is responsible for the establishment of a crossing on Western Road and then urge that party to install a crossing or other form of traffic calming measure, so as to allow people to cross freely and safely.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Post Office Closures

Andrew Rosindell: I rise again to present a petition of no fewer than 800 signatures collected by users of the Rush Green post office in my constituency of Romford. Those constituents, along with many others, are deeply concerned at the possibility of the closure of the post office and others in my constituency, including the Station Road post office, the Crowlands post office, North Street post office, Gobions post office, Victoria Road post office and the Brentwood Road post office. They are also concerned at the Government's policy to end support for the Post Office card account and hope that that policy will be reversed and that the service will be saved.
	The petitioners have submitted the petition to me, which
	Declares that the petitioners believe that the post office network provides a vital service to local communities in both urban and rural areas. The petitioners are concerned that the threatened withdrawal of services from local post offices, by the Government, will seriously affect the governance and more specifically, efficiency of the postal network, as well as damaging community cohesion around these post offices, which in many cases acts as a central and focal point for local community interaction.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform to reverse its announcement to end support for the Post Office Card Account 2010 thereby threatening the viability of thousands of post offices and further urges it to immediately halt its activities designed to kill off the account, and Post Office services in the Romford constituency,
	And the Petitioners remain.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Inland Waterways

David Taylor: The canals have long been a major player in regenerating local economies, restoring environments and sustaining the quality of community life, and nowhere more so than in north-west Leicestershire, where many are alarmed at the cuts in the British Waterways budget and their potential impact. I am very happy therefore to present this petition after a beautiful day in London, which stands in stark contrast to the wet miserable day in Leicester, with the rain slatting down on 4 March, when I helped to launch it with my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby).
	The petition signatories include David Stevenson, who has worked astonishingly hard with others to compile it, Janet Stevenson of 6 Heathfield, Thringstone Leicestershire LE67 8LU, and myself as the local Member of Parliament and a regular user of the facilities of the Ashby canal in my constituency.
	The petition reads:
	To the House of Commons.
	The Petition of 671 constituents of North West Leicestershire and other users of Britain's inland waterways
	Declares that...
	Our inland waterways are a unique national asset that provide an important contribution to the quality of life for millions of our citizens. We therefore are deeply concerned that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has seen fit to reduce British Waterways' grant by some £60 million over the next 5 years and that of the Environment Agency by £25 million in this financial year. We believe that these cuts will have a devastating effect upon the well-being of inland waterways.
	The Petitioners therefore...
	Request that the House of Commons call upon the Government to introduce legislation to solve the immediate problems caused by these cuts to current budgets and to ensure that long-term funding is guaranteed to enable continued investment and restoration of the waterways.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Telephone Masts

Bob Spink: A constituent of mine has compiled a petition against the erection of a new 40 ft high telephone mast with three antennae near homes and businesses. She wrote to me that local people feel strongly that 02 should cite the mast elsewhere and that she has used every ounce of her strength and determination to get the results she has achieved, with the interests of her precious only child and of her community at heart. She is a real star in working for her community, and I need do no more than urge local councillors to listen to her and ensure that the mast is sited in a more appropriate place.
	The petition states:
	The petition of Cheryl Oldroyd, residents of Canvey Island and others declares that the proposal submitted by 02 to erect a mobile telephone mast on the High Street, Canvey Island, is unacceptable due to the ill-considered suitability of a busy residential and business area for such a structure. The petitioners emphasise the significant lack of understanding in respect of the longer term effects of such telephone masts on the health of those within the immediate vicinity and particularly on young children. Whilst the petitioners acknowledge the need to erect and maintain such structures in the interests of business, they submit that more suitable locations for this structure are available, of which the applicant is already aware and should consider.
	The petitioners therefore request the House to urge the Government to encourage Castle Point Borough Councillors to reject the plans and seek an alternative, less densely populated area, in consideration of the wishes of residents.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Baby Changing Units

Bob Spink: I hope that I am not considered greedy in presenting two petitions, like my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), but each of my constituents is, as is each of his, worth any two from other constituencies.
	Baby changing units was a new matter to me when this petition came before me, but on investigation I found that it raises serious and valid issues for my constituency. There is even a child safety issue, which I do not have time to go into tonight.
	Each council must deliver statutory services, and additional facilities such as public conveniences and facilities for children and mothers. That is especially the case in respect of councils such as Castle Point which charges one of the highest council taxes in the country. Next to the Canvey Knightswick centre toilets, there is a room currently used for storing cleaning equipment that could be converted to a baby changing room, so making that small but important improvement would not be rocket science, and I hope that councillors will act on the petition.
	The petition states:
	The petition of Tracy Taplin, residents of Canvey Island and others, declares that the existing public facilities on Canvey Island are inadequate for the needs of those with small children, and notes that Castle Point Borough Council has a de facto duty to provide and maintain suitable public facilities, particularly in a busy shopping area, such as Canvey's excellent shopping centre.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons entreats the Government to bring pressure to bear on Castle Point Borough Council to provide a baby changing unit at a suitable location in Canvey Island's shopping centre.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Crown Post Offices

Jim Dowd: I commiserate with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) on being drawn last in this long series of petitions.
	The petition is on behalf of more than 500 constituents and other users of the Forest Hill, London SE23 Crown post office and concerns Post Office plans to merge with WH Smith. I am aware that the scheme is being implemented across the country, and that many other Members' constituencies are being similarly affected.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of the London Borough of Lewisham and others, Declares the Petitioners' serious concerns about the future of Post Office counter services in Forest Hill following the announcement that this Post Office Branch will move to WH Smith. The closure of local Sub-Post Offices in recent years has meant a poorer service to customers, particularly for the elderly and disabled, and the petitioners are concerned that this merger may result in a deterioration in the quality of services on offer at present.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State to use his powers to ensure that the Post Office does not reduce the level of services currently available to customers under its new partnership agreement with WH Smith.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Asylum Seekers (Vouchers)

Dari Taylor: I wish to present a petition from 394 signatories from Teesside and elsewhere. It is signed by Kath Sainsbury, who works tirelessly for all asylum seekers in Teesside.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Teesside and others, Declares the Petitioners' serious concerns about the voucher scheme currently administered to individuals who qualify for support under Section 4 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1999. The Petitioners further declare that the vouchers stigmatise and degrade those who are forced to use them. The vouchers fail to meet the needs of the recipient because they can only be used in certain shops for a limited range of goods. Often, these shops are not located in the neighbourhoods where the refugee community live and people are forced to travel—this can cause severe hardship because vouchers are not accepted on public transport, yet voucher recipients do not have the option of using cash.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Home Department to use his powers to rescind the Section 4 voucher scheme and replace it with cash payments.
	 To lie upon the Table.

HEALTH SERVICES (WEST CUMBRIA)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Khan.]

Jamie Reed: This is the second time that I have raised in the House the future of health services in west Cumbria, the first time being in December 2005. Almost two years later, there has been some meaningful progress in the provision of health services in the area and the Government continue to provide record levels of investment, but much more still needs to be done. The reason for applying for this debate tonight is that in September, when Parliament will not be sitting, a consultation on the reconfiguration of health services in west Cumbria and Cumbria generally will begin. That consultation has been dubbed the grand plan. With that in mind, it is essential that, on behalf of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham), health service users and health care professionals alike, certain expectations are now set out, listened to and fully understood.
	Those expectations relate to health services across west Cumbria, the services provided by West Cumberland hospital, the scope and timescale of the consultation, the need for all sections of west Cumbrian society to be able to take part in that consultation and for the opinion of local medical professionals to be listened to in the process of service design. In December 2005, I told the House that anxiety about health services in west Cumbria was seemingly endemic, that the people of west Cumbria had harboured deep anxieties concerning the local health services for well over 20 years and that their fears—my fears—are long held and not simply in response to any given public debate about the NHS at any given time. That is still the case.
	Ever since I can remember, the people of west Cumbria have had to fend off one threat or another to the services provided by their hospital. For more than 20 years now,  The Whitehaven News has reported on what has appeared to be a perpetual threat to our hospital services—most recently through the excellent save our services campaign, which has provided so many local people with an opportunity to have their voices heard. Like my constituents, I want an end to the threats. I want us to be free of the threats and free of fear, and that is what I expect the forthcoming consultation to provide.
	The Minister will no doubt be aware of the background to tonight's debate and the imminent consultation. West Cumbria is a unique area which provides unique health policy challenges. With approximately 160,000 people, west Cumbria is both urban and rural: the majority of people live in urban areas, but in small urban areas separated from other urban areas by vast tracts of rural expanse that themselves contain numerous small rural villages. Population centres are widely dispersed, the communications infrastructure is poor, public transport is poorer still and car ownership is low. In addition, west Cumbria is host to perhaps the most strategically sensitive industrial installation in this or any other country—Sellafield. Put simply, there is no off the shelf solution for the health policy issues facing west Cumbria. Our unique situation requires unique policy solutions and there are no people better placed than the service users and service providers of health care in west Cumbria to produce and implement the solutions. Inevitably, that will require change of some kind, but it must be change for the better.
	It is clear that change in the NHS is incredibly hard to achieve for a number of reasons. The size of the organisation means that change is complex, difficult and expensive. The nature of health care means that expert bodies will often violently disagree about the best way forward. The new Secretary of State has recognised all of that, identifying where the Government have got their approach wrong in the past, where they failed to listen to professionals and where they pursued change too quickly. The Secretary of State has called for a period of calm and stability in the NHS and the Prime Minister—the man responsible as Chancellor of the Exchequer for trebling the budget of the NHS—has said that the NHS is his immediate priority. Both approaches are exactly right for the health service in west Cumbria at this moment in time, but I would go further still.
	For almost four years now, the health economy of Cumbria has endured a series of consultations, reviews, reorganisations and reconfigurations. The pace of that process has been painful and the objectives very often unclear. The grand plan consultation must avoid the mistakes of the past and bring an end to the uncertainty and confusion.
	I mentioned at the outset of this debate that there had been some meaningful progress in the west Cumbrian health economy. I shall give details of some of that progress. West Cumberland hospital opened in 1964 and it was the first new hospital to be built in Britain after Labour's creation of the NHS. I am proud of this fact. I am proud too of the staff who work there, their care and commitment, their devotion and their absolute professionalism.
	I am pleased that West Cumberland hospital is among the best in the country at preventing MRSA infections. I am pleased that our hospital trust has achieved two-star status. I am pleased that the independent Healthcare Commission reports that standards of care at our hospital are rated as good, and improving all the time. I am pleased that staff in the NHS are being paid better than ever before; they waited a long time for that and they deserve every penny.
	In west Cumbria, we have been promised a new acute district general hospital. Our community hospitals in places such as Millom, Keswick, Cockermouth, Maryport and Workington have been saved thanks to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington and me, facilitated by an additional £18.5 million cash injection from the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, over and above the record investment made by the Government. I record my thanks to my hon. Friend, who continues to stand shoulder to shoulder with me as we work to improve the health services of west Cumbria. By convention he is not allowed to speak in this place but he makes up for that outside.
	Cynics decry the record investment that Labour has put into the NHS. By cynics, I mean those who want to destabilise the NHS by claiming that increasing investment serves no purpose, and worse, in the case of the Conservatives, those who want to cut NHS spending as part of their £21 billion-worth of public spending cuts. However, I am delighted that the Government are investing unprecedented amounts in health services in west Cumbria and in Cumbria as a whole. When I last debated these issues, local NHS spending had risen by 97 per cent. since Labour came to power.
	In addition, in April, North West strategic health authority, which covers Cumbria, saw its budget rise by 9.3 per cent.—an increase of £878.2 million. At the same time, Cumbria primary care trust received a 9 per cent. increase in revenue funding—an increase of £56.6 million—taking the revenue budget for the PCT from £632.5 million in 2006-07 to £689.2 million for this financial year, which is the 29th largest increase of the 152 PCTs in England.
	The increase comes at a particularly appropriate time, as it means that more money is available to the PCT with which to commission services in west Cumbria, in particular at West Cumberland hospital, than ever before. That increase in funding must be reflected in the PCT's grand plan and in the design of services provided at either West Cumberland hospital or a new acute hospital for west Cumbria. The sum of £56.6 million should go a long way in west Cumbria and having been given that additional money, the PCT must act equitably and responsibly to ensure that the grand plan delivers for west Cumbria and west Cumbrians. But that is not enough.
	Despite those real improvements and unquestionable investments, I want our services to improve further still—they have to—and it is through the grand plan that I expect the improvements to be realised. When the new Cumbria PCT was brought into being, it promised, through its grand plan, to bring to an end the corrosive doubts about services. The plan is designed to be a final examination of all health services provided across the whole county of Cumbria, with a view to improving services and accessibility to services, driving up clinical standards and achieving clinical and financial sustainability.
	I welcome the motives underpinning the plan. However, a great deal of work needs to be done with regard to the plan in terms of its time scale, scope, process and the involvement of medical professionals and the public. I hope the Minister will outline for the benefit of my constituents exactly how she now expects Cumbria PCT to facilitate that.
	It is appropriate at this stage to welcome, in principle, the recently announced NHS next stage review to be undertaken by Professor Darzi. The terms of reference state that it will be clinically driven, patient centred and responsive to local communities. The review seeks to deliver NHS services centred on clinical decision making, improved joined-up patient care, more accessible integrated care and a
	"health service based less on central direction and more on patient control, choice and local accountability and which ensures services are responsive to patients and local communities".
	Professor Darzi will publish an interim report in October and a full report next year, but I want the west Cumbria grand plan to incorporate those objectives now. I will not countenance another review of services in west Cumbria inadvertently caused by the Darzi review, so can the Minister assure me that she will ensure that the grand plan for health services in west Cumbria will now take account of the Darzi review terms of reference?
	I can think of no better précis of how the people of west Cumbria would like their health services to be configured than that outlined in Professor Darzi's terms of reference. When I speak to clinicians and medical professionals they tell me that they want to ensure that their abilities and skills are channelled into meeting local needs. Service users, young and old, on urban estates and in rural villages, tell me that they want a health service that is responsive to the needs of their local community. Expectant mothers tell me increasingly of their desire for choice and everyone—particularly those in the throes of a public consultation—is energised by the need for local accountability in their local health service. Decision making in the NHS cannot always be described as transparent, but transparent, honest and open the grand plan consultation must be.
	I could talk at length about a number of key health services in west Cumbria that in themselves would easily fill the time allocated for this debate. I could talk about the need for drastic improvements in dentistry provision, or the real need to address the implementation of local mental health services, or the importance of accident and emergency services at West Cumberland hospital. I expect the grand plan to address all of those, but I wish to talk tonight about consultant-led maternity services at West Cumberland hospital—not because my wife is seven months pregnant and due to give birth there in September, but because as a service it underpins so much of what other acute service provision must encompass in a general district hospital such as West Cumberland hospital.
	Perhaps more importantly, this is about social justice. Centralisation of maternity services in my constituency does not mean the same as it might for other colleagues in all parts of the House. We are not talking about moving services six, seven or eight miles away in this instance, but 42 miles—42 miles of road between Whitehaven and Carlisle, characterised by steep undulations, blind corners, slow-moving heavy freight and agricultural traffic.
	I believe that the case for maintaining those services at West Cumberland hospital is irrefutable. A convincing case has never been made for the centralisation of obstetric services in Carlisle; on the contrary, there is a clear and irresistible case against centralisation. This case is now supported by national experts, national guidelines and clinical practitioners. I have spoken with service users, special interest groups, national experts and clinicians since centralisation was suggested, and have found, with very few exceptions, widespread opposition to the suggestion.
	The case for retaining a consultant-led maternity unit at West Cumberland hospital and its potential replacement is based on a number of factors. West Cumbria's birth rate is rising. It continues to rise and is on an upward trend. Last year the hospital delivered 1,330 babies—an increase of 3.7 per cent. on the previous year. The national increase is currently 1 per cent. In 2002, the hospital delivered 1,163 babies. The number of deliveries has risen by 167 over a four-year period—an increase of almost 13 per cent.
	The performance of the consultant-led maternity unit at West Cumberland hospital is impressive. Its perinatal mortality rate is steadily declining. In fact, the latest figures show that its figures are significantly better than the national average. The latest available UK figures, for 2003-04, show an average perinatal mortality rate of 8.2 births per thousand births. In 2006, the perinatal mortality rate for West Cumbria was 4.5 per thousand births.
	Consultant-led maternity units are safer and more cost-effective than midwifery-led units. In June 2006 the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence published draft guidelines on intrapartum care. NICE found that although midwifery-led units were cheaper to operate, consultant-led units were more cost-effective. NICE also identified a higher perinatal mortality ratio of 7.2 to 7.8 per thousand deliveries in MLUs, as opposed to a rate of 5.1 per thousand deliveries in consultant-led units.
	Centralisation would lead to inequalities of access to care and remove the choice of west Cumbrian women. The national service framework for children, young people and maternity services published in October 2004 states that
	"care should be provided within a framework that enables easy and early transfer of women and babies who unexpectedly require specialist care."
	The emergency ambulance "blue light" transfer time between west Cumberland hospital and Cumberland infirmary in Carlisle is now one hour 42 minutes. Currently, most women giving birth in north Cumbria are within 35 minutes of obstetric care; centralisation would increase this time by almost 200 per cent.
	Centralisation would also mean that west Cumbrian women were necessarily either classified as high or low risk, with all high-risk patients being immediately transferred to a centralised obstetric unit. That removes choice, in direct contradiction of Government policy.
	In addition, the vast majority of west Cumbrian women require obstetric intervention in labour. Obstetric risk prediction is exceptionally difficult. This risk is mitigated by births taking place in an obstetric unit, where most eventualities can be catered for. Of the 1,330 births at West Cumberland hospital last year, the vast majority required obstetric intervention. Given the imprecise nature of obstetric risk prediction, the World Health Organisation has recommended:
	"In order to significantly reduce maternal mortality, all pregnant, labouring and recently delivered women must have access to essential obstetric care should complications arise."
	Centralisation would mean approximately 1,000 west Cumbrian women per year being transferred to Carlisle to give birth.
	Distance matters: women more than 15 miles from an obstetric unit face hugely increased risks. The British journal of gynaecology published studies in 2002 which identified that living more than 15 miles from a maternity hospital was one of the most important variables in maternal mortality.
	Perhaps more importantly, the Cumbrian health infrastructure cannot accommodate obstetric centralisation. The centralisation of obstetric services at Carlisle would distort the finances and resources of the local NHS. Significant new investment in human resources and the physical infrastructure would have to be made to Cumberland infirmary to accommodate approximately 1,000 new cases every year, and the most likely effect is that the necessary financial and human resources would be diverted from West Cumberland hospital or its replacement.
	In addition, national experts refuse to recommend centralisation. Dr. Maggie Blott, author of the North Cumbria Acute Hospitals NHS Trust's obstetric and midwifery service review report wrote that
	"There is no obvious solution"
	with regard to reconfiguring services and was unable to recommend centralising services in Carlisle. Local lay members of the steering group also refused to recommend centralisation. They wrote that centralisation would do little to address the needs of disadvantaged groups in west Cumbria and that west Cumbrian women would not regard centralisation as either safe or equitable. The national maternity tsar has also acknowledged the unique needs of west Cumbria. In "Making it Better: For Mother and Baby", published in February 2007, Dr. Sheila Shribman wrote:
	"what will be right for Whitechapel will not necessarily work in Whitehaven. There is no optimum number of births to make a unit sustainable."
	This is a very brief synopsis of the weight of evidence against centralisation. These decisions will be made locally. I have put this argument to Cumbria PCT, and I will pursue the issue relentlessly. Given the weight of the argument and the strength of public opinion, I expect that the grand plan for health service reconfiguration throughout Cumbria will incorporate those views and recognise the unique nature of west Cumbria's health care needs.
	One of the three separate petitions, totalling more than 30,000 signatures, that I have presented in recent months to the House relating to health services in west Cumbria related specifically to consultant-led maternity services.
	In conclusion, I want Ministers to scrutinise the grand plan consultation for Cumbria and ensure that it is transparent, open, honest and accessible. I want Ministers to ensure that, as well as the views of the public, those of the medical professionals will be incorporated in the consultation. In addition, I want Ministers to ensure that socio-economic and national strategic considerations are addressed in the consultation. The consultation must recognise the unique qualities of west Cumbria: pockets of isolated social deprivation, peripherality and the considerable challenges and national obligations provided in the shape of the nuclear industry. West Cumbria provides unique health policy challenges, and that must be recognised. On top of that, I want the consultation to take account of the Darzi review, so that the consultation in west Cumbria is final and not subject to further delay.
	Finally, I should like Ministers to visit West Cumberland hospital to meet staff and patient representatives to hear their views and to ensure that the PCT takes account of them. The Minister is a former nurse and understands the issues, and I look forward to her response.

Ann Keen: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr. Reed) on securing this debate. The future of health services in west Cumbria is of great concern to him, as he has demonstrated on many occasions, particularly in his contribution tonight, and I appreciate the comments that he has made in the House today. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) for all the work that he has done for the health service in the areas that they serve.
	I acknowledge the important role that my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland has played in raising the profile of this issue and in keeping Ministers regularly up to date with progress, with consultations and public meetings. He is a real unsung hero of his area, and his constituents should be very proud of him. I also to pay tribute to the 1.3 million staff who work in the national health service, particularly the staff in west Cumbria who have made an enormous contribution to improving the local NHS and to whom my hon. Friend referred in his speech. Those achievements have been made following the record investment by the Government, from £33 billion in 1997, rising to over £92 billion by 2008.
	My hon. Friend made great reference to the review of services and how we deliver health care. That is absolutely paramount for the future. Of course, he also referred to my noble Friend Professor Ara Darzi and the way he will conduct the review of our health services. I understand that my hon. Friend has been in great conversation recently with the chief executive of NHS North West to discuss this issue, particularly funding. I ask my hon. Friend to keep me updated on all the consultations, because they are paramount to the future of health services in the area.
	The newly formed Cumbria primary care trust had an out-turn deficit of £36 million at the end of 2006-07 and it is intended to look at a whole new system of undertaking in relation to financial viability, so that the health service in the area is fit for purpose but also effective and affordable.
	My hon. Friend mentioned the anxiety and fear that surround any change to health services. I relate to that, because sometimes not everybody in the area plays fair on a consultation. Fear and anxiety for patients, potential patients and staff who work in the NHS must be brought to a conclusion soon.
	The review is looking at acute hospital services, and mental health and community care services. The aim is to achieve a better use of clinical resources while keeping services close to people. The Department's gateway review team gave its initial assessment of the process and Cumbria primary care trust is working to address the points highlighted by the review team. The public consultation on proposals emerging from the review is now planned for September of this year. The proposals for the future shape of health services across Cumbria will be shaped by the findings of the feasibility work done following the previous Morecambe bay consultation, and by the commitment given by Cumbria primary care trust to North Cumbria Acute Hospitals NHS Trust to provide a new hospital in west Cumbria.
	I note the concerns that my hon. Friend raised and I can assure him that the consultation will be open, honest and transparent, with decisions taken locally that reflect local needs and are based on appropriate clinical evidence. There is no other way for us to go forward with the health service. We should involve everybody.
	My hon. Friend made an important point about the provision of maternity services. He is an expectant parent and I am sure that the whole House understands the sentiment with which he spoke tonight. He makes a valid point about the distance between the two hospitals and the road conditions. I also appreciate the relevance of the national service framework for children, young people and maternity services, which my Department published in 2004.
	It is with regret—especially as my hon. Friend mentioned my former profession—that I have to say that I cannot give him a commitment about what services will be located where. However, it is vital that the issues are debated as part of the consultation exercise and it is appropriate for local people to voice their opinions on matters such as these, which are important to them. I stress the safety element that he raised. I am sure that all Members appreciate the importance that he attached to that.
	My hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot speculate at this stage on the details of the consultation or indeed its outcome. It is relevant to local people, clinically led and will be transparent. The debate needs to happen locally and if, in the end, there are concerns about whatever option is preferred, the overview and scrutiny committee can of course refer the matter to the Secretary of State for Health for a final decision. As my hon. Friend may be aware, the Secretary of Sate has already indicated his willingness to refer all reconfiguration proposals that are referred to him to an independent reconfiguration panel. In that way, we can be sure that such decisions, which are of great importance to my hon. Friend and his constituents, properly reflect local clinical considerations.
	The issue of the new hospital is a major concern to my hon. Friend. I am aware that he has had several meetings with officials and Ministers and I commend his commitment to his constituents in pursuing the matter with such vigour. I had a similar experience in my constituency and found that determination wins through in the end. The North Cumbria Acute Hospitals NHS Trust's strategic outline business case to build a new hospital for west Cumbria was approved by the former Cumbria and Lancashire strategic health authority in January 2006. Cumbria primary care trust and North Cumbria Acute Hospitals NHS Trust have given assurances that there will be a new hospital for west Cumbria. However, it is not possible at this stage to give details of location and size, or the services that will be offered, because these will be developed in the context of the whole systems review.
	As noted earlier, the health service review is very important, and Members of Parliament should encourage their constituents to express their views in the consultation process. That process will shape the future of the NHS, which enters its 60th year next year. I understand the concerns outlined by my hon. Friend and I urge him to continue his dialogue with the local NHS in what is still a pre-consultation discussion.
	I have noted the observations made by my hon. Friend and I am sure that he will understand why I cannot comment further, given the proposed consultation process. However, I can assure him that the process will be an open one—and that I would very much like to visit his part of the world, which is noted for its beauty, complexity and uniqueness. It is better see that combination with one's own eyes, as that is the way to greater knowledge.

Eric Martlew: I hope that the Minister will also visit the Cumberland infirmary, which is in my constituency.

Ann Keen: I have been overwhelmed by invitations in the past couple of weeks, and feel confident that I will be able to visit my hon. Friend.
	I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland will continue to engage with the local NHS and encourage his constituents to take the opportunity to make their views known through the consultation process. I will also ensure that his views are conveyed to the strategic health authority in the area.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Eleven o'clock.